| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
How would EVE change if when a ship runs into another ship, damage would be given to both ships relative to their mass and speed? If I have miss-worded that question I am sorry. But I hope that you understand the spirit of the question.
I'm truly interested in what the community thinks on this. I hope you will really think deep on this and post your thoughts.
Thanks!
|

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
16780
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ships would explode without a shot being fired, especially on the Jita 4-4 undock. |

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1534
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:How would EVE change if when a ship runs into another ship, damage would be given to both ships relative to their mass and speed? If I have miss-worded that question I am sorry. But I hope that you understand the spirit of the question.
I'm truly interested in what the community thinks on this. I hope you will really think deep on this and post your thoughts.
Thanks!
Posting in a stealth "nerf bumping" thread.
"Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:How would EVE change if when a ship runs into another ship, damage would be given to both ships relative to their mass and speed? If I have miss-worded that question I am sorry. But I hope that you understand the spirit of the question.
I'm truly interested in what the community thinks on this. I hope you will really think deep on this and post your thoughts.
Thanks!
Posting in a stealth "nerf bumping" thread.
I promise that I am not.
I was more thinking about the large fleet battles where it just ends up being a mass of ships bouncing off one another. But yes, it would definitely change the dynamic of 'bumping'. On that note....I can see where there would be plenty of 'Bumpers' would not like it.
|

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1534
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:How would EVE change if when a ship runs into another ship, damage would be given to both ships relative to their mass and speed? If I have miss-worded that question I am sorry. But I hope that you understand the spirit of the question.
I'm truly interested in what the community thinks on this. I hope you will really think deep on this and post your thoughts.
Thanks!
Posting in a stealth "nerf bumping" thread. I promise that I am not. I was more thinking about the large fleet battles where it just ends up being a mass of ships bouncing off one another. But yes, it would definitely change the dynamic of 'bumping'. On that note....I can see where there would be plenty of 'Bumpers' would not like it.
I'm not a bumper. I don't necessarily agree with the whole bumping thing. I think these guys should just splat the miners or anyone else that refuses to submit to their demands and call it a day. But it is what it is. They have the devs blessing - C'est la vie.
This being what it is - collisions of ships causing damage = no bueno. Though the mayhem and chaos outside IV-4 would be spectacular. 
"Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
2830
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:How would EVE change if when a ship runs into another ship, damage would be given to both ships relative to their mass and speed? If I have miss-worded that question I am sorry. But I hope that you understand the spirit of the question.
I'm truly interested in what the community thinks on this. I hope you will really think deep on this and post your thoughts.
Thanks!
Someone like me would park a huge ship on an undock, and everyone else would get blown up.
Oh, and someone like me would use it to "bump" miners and exhumers.
This idea has been proposed before. A lot. It was a stupid idea then, and it's a stupid idea now. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
10458
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
I see that 12945 threads on this same subject with the same ideas just were not enough, and we required 12946.
Search > New Topic. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |

Marit Mankalas
Marit Mankalas Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Maybe, there would be something like "the shield of both ships reduce the speed of the colision and there is no domage in normal conditions".
So there will be real damage only if one of the ship is at full speed... or if the shield of one of them is down.
I would find this cool, if it would be "not too often".
P.S.: Please excuse my English, I'm not a native speaker. |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:How would EVE change if when a ship runs into another ship, damage would be given to both ships relative to their mass and speed? If I have miss-worded that question I am sorry. But I hope that you understand the spirit of the question.
I'm truly interested in what the community thinks on this. I hope you will really think deep on this and post your thoughts.
Thanks!
Someone like me would park a huge ship on an undock, and everyone else would get blown up. Oh, and someone like me would use it to "bump" miners and exhumers. This idea has been proposed before. A lot. It was a stupid idea then, and it's a stupid idea now.
On the parking the huge ship - I would guess the current mechanics that don't allow bumping until you make an action would get around that...or at the very least there would be a mechanism that would inhibit this.
On the "bumping" of miners and exhumers, I would think that these ships should rightfully be the biggest and most mass laden of all the ships in EVE...so if you did 'bump' them...you would cause yourself just as much damage as you inflict.
Stupid idea? That a real world physics situation would be in effect? Bouncing multimillion / billion ton objects together without any damage is.....well stupid.....to use your own term. |

unidenify
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:I see that 12945 threads on this same subject with the same ideas just were not enough, and we required 12946.
Search > New Topic.
sad part is that I can't tell if this is true or fake. |

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
16782
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:Stupid idea? That a real world physics situation would be in effect? Bouncing multimillion / billion ton objects together without any damage is.....well stupid.....to use your own term. You don't want real world collision mechanics. With regards to the bumping of freighters and mining ships, hitting a slow moving multimillion ton ship with another multimillion ton ship travelling at 2km/s is going to leave a bloody big hole in the slower ship if real world physics were imposed. Kinetic energy has to be part of the equation.
Slightly off topic; theoretically you can make a real mess of a planet using an object millions of times smaller if it's going fast enough. It's been a staple of sci-fi for years and was a commonly touted idea during the cold war. |

Malcolm Shinhwa
Bad Touches
1257
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
How would it be if we piloted unicorns around a meadow.. and other useless "what if" questions next time on GD. I know violence isn't the answer. I got it wrong on purpose. |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
2831
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:14:00 -
[13] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote: Stupid idea? That a real world physics situation would be in effect? Bouncing multimillion / billion ton objects together without any damage is.....well stupid.....to use your own term.
The game is based off an underwater physics model, actually. It's a submarine simulator.
Also, if you want psycho realism, you shouldn't be playing an MMO. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
19648
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:How would it be if we piloted unicorns around a meadow. It would be as if we played a horribly balanced Bethesda game with hilarious AI.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |

Malcolm Shinhwa
Bad Touches
1257
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:How would it be if we piloted unicorns around a meadow. It would be as if we played a horribly balanced Bethesda game with hilarious AI.
I just hope "horn lube" is an affordable commodity in this game. Or maybe a debuff you put on the player closing on your six. I know violence isn't the answer. I got it wrong on purpose. |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
Not sure where the negativity is coming from. I just posed a valid question that I would hope would provoke some alternative thoughts on game play.
Thank you to all that at least attempted to stay on topic and not just dismiss the original question. |

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
309
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Unicorns can only be piloted by virgins.
... just saying ... |

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1541
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:26:00 -
[18] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:Not sure where the negativity is coming from.
I can tell you where it's coming from.
Vanity Tian wrote:I just posed a valid question that I would hope would provoke some alternative thoughts on game play.
A question that has been asked again and again, over and over, ad nauseum.
Vanity Tian wrote:Thank you to all that at least attempted to stay on topic and not just dismiss the original question.
You're very welcome. Enjoy the rest of your day. "Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1541
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:27:00 -
[19] - Quote
Marit Mankalas wrote:P.S.: Please excuse my English, I'm not a native speaker.
Your English is strides better than some of the native speakers here.
"Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

Malcolm Shinhwa
Bad Touches
1257
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:27:00 -
[20] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:Unicorns can only be piloted by virgins.
... just saying ...
According to comments I get in local, my unicorn pilot's license is valid. I know violence isn't the answer. I got it wrong on purpose. |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:37:00 -
[21] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:Not sure where the negativity is coming from. I can tell you where it's coming from. Vanity Tian wrote:I just posed a valid question that I would hope would provoke some alternative thoughts on game play. A question that has been asked again and again, over and over, ad nauseum. Vanity Tian wrote:Thank you to all that at least attempted to stay on topic and not just dismiss the original question. You're very welcome. Enjoy the rest of your day.
You do realize don't you that when a question has been asked '...again and again, over and over, ad nauseum." That usually means that there is an issue that should be addressed and and YOU are probably a minority in your unhelpful response?
It is no wonder why these forums get the reputation that they do. |

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1541
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:You do realize don't you that when a question has been asked '...again and again, over and over, ad nauseum." That usually means that there is an issue that should be addressed and and YOU are probably a minority in your unhelpful response?
It's been addressed - by CCP. You would know that if you used Search instead of New Topic.
Vanity Tian wrote:It is no wonder why these forums get the reputation that they do.
I couldn't agree more! People starting new threads about the same crap every other day is aggravating. Welcome to the Eve-O forums.
Enjoy the rest of you day. "Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
2834
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:43:00 -
[23] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:Not sure where the negativity is coming from. I just posed a valid question that I would hope would provoke some alternative thoughts on game play.
Thank you to all that at least attempted to stay on topic and not just dismiss the original question.
It's not a valid question. Not even a little bit. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
311
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:51:00 -
[24] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:Not sure where the negativity is coming from. I just posed a valid question that I would hope would provoke some alternative thoughts on game play.
Thank you to all that at least attempted to stay on topic and not just dismiss the original question.
As said above the "rubber ducks in a bath tub" physics of EVE has been discussed ad infinitum before.
However for a more serious answer, consider the unexpected consequences of your proposal, in particular what would happen if:
- you are mining and accidently bump an asteroid - select approach on any object with MWD engaged - anything large (orca freighter etc) plows through all the small ships on dock at Jita - you are trying to navigate through any of the "scenery" (large abandoned stations etc)
Plus ... to be even slightly realistic you will need a much more sophisticated damage model for ships, more akin to that used in combat flight sims, and what part of a ship you bump would suddenly matter. The scenery would also require a damage model. This stuff is more a thing for Valkerie.
It is far simpler to simply say "Ships in EVE have a funky force field that makes them bounce off things". |

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
10462
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 23:03:00 -
[25] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:You do realize don't you that when a question has been asked '...again and again, over and over, ad nauseum." That usually means that there is an issue that should be addressed and and YOU are probably a minority in your unhelpful response? It's been addressed - by CCP. You would know that if you used Search instead of New Topic. Vanity Tian wrote:It is no wonder why these forums get the reputation that they do. I couldn't agree more! People starting new threads about the same crap every other day is aggravating. Welcome to the Eve-O forums. Enjoy the rest of you day.
You complete me. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1546
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 23:05:00 -
[26] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:You do realize don't you that when a question has been asked '...again and again, over and over, ad nauseum." That usually means that there is an issue that should be addressed and and YOU are probably a minority in your unhelpful response? It's been addressed - by CCP. You would know that if you used Search instead of New Topic. Vanity Tian wrote:It is no wonder why these forums get the reputation that they do. I couldn't agree more! People starting new threads about the same crap every other day is aggravating. Welcome to the Eve-O forums. Enjoy the rest of you day. You complete me.
Holy ****! Brought tears to my eyes laughing so hard. "Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

DaReaper
Net 7 The Last Brigade
192
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 23:47:00 -
[27] - Quote
As an aside, you will prolly see how bad an idea this is when and if that other game people are drooling over comes out. They will have collision damage... yea...
And it would take a complete reworking of all aspects of eve to even remotely make it work. So not gonna happen and its a horrible idea |

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
10463
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 00:01:00 -
[28] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:As an aside, you will prolly see how bad an idea this is when and if that other game people are drooling over comes out. They will have collision damage... yea...
And it would take a complete reworking of all aspects of eve to even remotely make it work. So not gonna happen and its a horrible idea
They are campaigning for "bumping" to be an illegal action and cause their version of CONCORD to intervene... If that happens... I cant wait to repeatedly fly my ship in front of them so they can have a taste of CONCORDOKKEN pie ala Eve Online. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
4254
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 00:02:00 -
[29] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:How would EVE change if when a ship runs into another ship, damage would be given to both ships relative to their mass and speed? If I have miss-worded that question I am sorry. But I hope that you understand the spirit of the question.
I'm truly interested in what the community thinks on this. I hope you will really think deep on this and post your thoughts.
Thanks!
How would EVE change if CCP fixed the bumping mechanic? For the better.
I say this because they would also have to fix the sloppy controls so that everyone in Jita wouldn't be blowing themselves up at the undock. Imagine being able to control your ship,instead of just pointing it at something and stopping by running in to it.
I'd go as far as to suggest a WASD control system but if CCP did that half the player base, with their irrational fear of those letters, would quit without even trying it.
Point and pray is really not a good system for a game to have in 2014. It needs some serious reworking. The bonus being that CCP could implement a proper collision mechanic while they're at it.
Mr Epeen  There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass! |

James Nikolas Tesla
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
97
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 00:07:00 -
[30] - Quote
An image comes to mind of a Titan steamrolling through an entire fleet. I <3 Boobees
|

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
10463
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 00:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:How would EVE change if CCP fixed the bumping mechanic? For the better. I say this because they would also have to fix the sloppy controls so that everyone in Jita wouldn't be blowing themselves up at the undock. Imagine being able to control your ship,instead of just pointing it at something and stopping by running in to it. I'd go as far as to suggest a WASD control system but if CCP did that half the player base, with their irrational fear of those letters, would quit without even trying it. Point and pray is really not a good system for a game to have in 2014. It needs some serious reworking. The bonus being that CCP could implement a proper collision mechanic while they're at it. Mr Epeen 
But..but..but the people who refuse to play on decent equipment or upgrade their connections from carrier pigeon to something slightly more modern will be at a huge disadvantage! The only real players of Eve Online will be the ones who go and buy a flat across the street from the servers! Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
263
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 00:08:00 -
[32] - Quote
The same can be said about the fact that planets don't orbit around their parent star, and moons around their parent planets, which admittedly be awesome to change for mere realism sake. But, to make that happen, the entire bookmark system would need to be completely replaced, and positioning of things like stations and gates would need to be looked over. At the least, it would be a horribly complex and massive job just to implement a proper celestial orbital mechanic. Too much work would have to be done for such a simple addition into the game, let alone to ensure it and the rest of the game is not thrown completely out of balance. |

Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
456
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 00:14:00 -
[33] - Quote
Marit Mankalas wrote:Maybe, there would be something like "the shield of both ships reduce the speed of the colision and there is no domage in normal conditions".
So there will be real damage only if one of the ship is at full speed... or if the shield of one of them is down.
I would find this cool, if it would be "not too often".
P.S.: Please excuse my English, I'm not a native speaker.
If 1 ship had shields down and other had shields remaining. I'd still see the other ship with no shields just bouncing away. Unless of course you have 2 ships that have had their shields depleted then you would start to see damage to ships. |

Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
456
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 00:15:00 -
[34] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:The same can be said about the fact that planets don't orbit around their parent star, and moons around their parent planets, which admittedly be awesome to change for mere realism sake. But, to make that happen, the entire bookmark system would need to be completely replaced, and positioning of things like stations and gates would need to be looked over. At the least, it would be a horribly complex and massive job just to implement a proper celestial orbital mechanic. Too much work would have to be done for such a simple addition into the game, let alone to ensure it and the rest of the game is not thrown completely out of balance.
Actually there is a video on youtube that shows either the pos orbits its moon or the moon orbiting the planet. |

Mourn LeBlade
Jupiter Roughriders
121
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 01:27:00 -
[35] - Quote
This is a great idea. We used to do this all the time in Mechwarrior....when all was lost, collide with a target and then destroy the reactor!! It would actually add a lot to small gang tactics where there would be an additional advantage to using ranged weapons. LTCOL LeBlade 177 Division Live Free or Die |

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1559
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 01:31:00 -
[36] - Quote
Mourn LeBlade wrote:First of all, this is a great idea. We used to do this all the time in Mechwarrior....when all was lost, collide with a target and then destroy the reactor!! It would actually add a lot to small gang tactics where there would be an additional advantage to using ranged weapons.
Is there a second of all or is it just first of all. You probably could have left that "First of all" out. I mean unless you had a second of all. I suppose you could have said, "All in all" but that is just unnecessary words.
"Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
51
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 02:01:00 -
[37] - Quote
it would incite a new type of ganking where bumping battleships would bump probably around battle cruisers and under solo, and mass bump anything larger with even less reprisal as is now.
Confirmed: Only wars in eve is blob and gank tactics. "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mine" -Dr. Smith |

Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4899
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 02:04:00 -
[38] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Mourn LeBlade wrote:First of all, this is a great idea. We used to do this all the time in Mechwarrior....when all was lost, collide with a target and then destroy the reactor!! It would actually add a lot to small gang tactics where there would be an additional advantage to using ranged weapons. Is there a second of all or is it just first of all. You probably could have left that "First of all" out. I mean unless you had a second of all. I suppose you could have said, "All in all" but that is just unnecessary words.
Quote: Edited by: Mourn LeBlade
LOL
SECOND OF ALL,EVE space ships arne't 70 ton manually piloted Battlemects that need to undock. I've spent the last 27 year sof my life being a Battletech fan, don't crap up the ideas of that universe with asshattery. |

SpoonRECKLESS
LOGI R Us
174
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 03:53:00 -
[39] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Ships would explode without a shot being fired, especially on the Jita 4-4 undock.
That would be beautiful. Blue
|

Victor Andall
Complexes and Abaddons
194
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 10:11:00 -
[40] - Quote
James Nikolas Tesla wrote:An image comes to mind of a Titan steamrolling through an entire fleet. Considering a titan's speed, I would say more like "gently pushing aside"
I think the main reason, though, for this being unfeasible is the sheer amount of extra calculations and server load it would bring.
Imagine HED-GP, but with every single collision being processed in addition to all else. I just undocked for the first time and someone challenged me to a duel. Wat do?
Andall Combat Tournaments - on hiatus. Contact for more information. |

Archibald Thistlewaite III
448
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 10:18:00 -
[41] - Quote
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:How would it be if we piloted unicorns around a meadow.. and other useless "what if" questions next time on GD.
Sounds like a fun game |

Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
195
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 12:46:00 -
[42] - Quote
Heh, it would make fully-plated, MWD Battleships hilarious to just plow into anything smaller (cool, a way to gank mining ships without getting concorded).
Warp a fleet of 50 freighters onto the 4-4 undock, and watch everything be destroyed for km around.
Warp a Titan into the centre of a subcap fleet - instant AOE DD back in the game.
Seige your dreadnaughts as an enemy fleet warps on top of them, and watch the fleet splatter like bugs on a windshield.
Better make sure you're in-cyno doesn't get killed, cos the "drop at 0 on the sun effect" will mean instantly crushed ship, no-matter what you are flying.
And the the hilarity of seeing a cap fleet cyno in, and immediatly all blow up. |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 15:47:00 -
[43] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:Not sure where the negativity is coming from. I just posed a valid question that I would hope would provoke some alternative thoughts on game play.
Thank you to all that at least attempted to stay on topic and not just dismiss the original question. As said above the "rubber ducks in a bath tub" physics of EVE has been discussed ad infinitum before. However for a more serious answer, consider the unexpected consequences of your proposal, in particular what would happen if: - you are mining and accidently bump an asteroid - select approach on any object with MWD engaged - anything large (orca freighter etc) plows through all the small ships on dock at Jita - you are trying to navigate through any of the "scenery" (large abandoned stations etc) Plus ... to be even slightly realistic you will need a much more sophisticated damage model for ships, more akin to that used in combat flight sims, and what part of a ship you bump would suddenly matter. The scenery would also require a damage model. This stuff is more a thing for Valkerie. It is far simpler to simply say "Ships in EVE have a funky force field that makes them bounce off things".
YES! Thank you for this response! This is exactly what I was asking. Yes...the game would completely be a different game....probably one that would not be possible in today's environment. This is exactly the type of thought I wanted to discuss. Thank you again for 1. Being on topic. 2. Taking the time to list some examples.
|

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 15:50:00 -
[44] - Quote
James Nikolas Tesla wrote:An image comes to mind of a Titan steamrolling through an entire fleet.
Awesome thought.  |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:01:00 -
[45] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:You do realize don't you that when a question has been asked '...again and again, over and over, ad nauseum." That usually means that there is an issue that should be addressed and and YOU are probably a minority in your unhelpful response? It's been addressed - by CCP. You would know that if you used Search instead of New Topic. Vanity Tian wrote:It is no wonder why these forums get the reputation that they do. I couldn't agree more! People starting new threads about the same crap every other day is aggravating. Welcome to the Eve-O forums. Enjoy the rest of you day.
You are banned from replying in this thread. 
Enjoy the rest of YOU day. * Your |

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1588
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:03:00 -
[46] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:You do realize don't you that when a question has been asked '...again and again, over and over, ad nauseum." That usually means that there is an issue that should be addressed and and YOU are probably a minority in your unhelpful response? It's been addressed - by CCP. You would know that if you used Search instead of New Topic. Vanity Tian wrote:It is no wonder why these forums get the reputation that they do. I couldn't agree more! People starting new threads about the same crap every other day is aggravating. Welcome to the Eve-O forums. Enjoy the rest of you day. You are banned from replying in this thread.  Enjoy the rest of YOU day. * Your
I'm not banned from anything.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
"Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:06:00 -
[47] - Quote
Caviar Liberta wrote:Marit Mankalas wrote:Maybe, there would be something like "the shield of both ships reduce the speed of the colision and there is no domage in normal conditions".
So there will be real damage only if one of the ship is at full speed... or if the shield of one of them is down.
I would find this cool, if it would be "not too often".
P.S.: Please excuse my English, I'm not a native speaker. If 1 ship had shields down and other had shields remaining. I'd still see the other ship with no shields just bouncing away. Unless of course you have 2 ships that have had their shields depleted then you would start to see damage to ships.
Yes...I didn't think about this change. This could completely change the dynamic of shield vs armor tanking for the purposes of PVP. I would think the shields of one would produce some level of damage to an unshielded ship. I can imagine an FC giving the order - "Ramming speed!" hehe |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
19677
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:09:00 -
[48] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:Yes...I didn't think about this change. This could completely change the dynamic of shield vs armor tanking for the purposes of PVP. I would think the shields of one would produce some level of damage to an unshielded ship. I can imagine an FC giving the order - "Ramming speed!" hehe Yes. Such a change in dynamic is called GÇ£massive imbalanceGÇ¥. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:13:00 -
[49] - Quote
Victor Andall wrote:James Nikolas Tesla wrote:An image comes to mind of a Titan steamrolling through an entire fleet. Considering a titan's speed, I would say more like "gently pushing aside" I think the main reason, though, for this being unfeasible is the sheer amount of extra calculations and server load it would bring. Imagine HED-GP, but with every single collision being processed in addition to all else.
Yes...from a computational standpoint, this would be unfeasible.
But in your example.....I would assume that certain fleet doctrines would be developed to 'spread' the ships in a way. Maybe more akin to what they do in the Honor Harrington books of a 'Battle Wall' I believe Weber calls it.
|

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:14:00 -
[50] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:You do realize don't you that when a question has been asked '...again and again, over and over, ad nauseum." That usually means that there is an issue that should be addressed and and YOU are probably a minority in your unhelpful response? It's been addressed - by CCP. You would know that if you used Search instead of New Topic. Vanity Tian wrote:It is no wonder why these forums get the reputation that they do. I couldn't agree more! People starting new threads about the same crap every other day is aggravating. Welcome to the Eve-O forums. Enjoy the rest of you day. You are banned from replying in this thread.  Enjoy the rest of YOU day. * Your I'm not banned from anything. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Yes...you are. From this thread. I don't want to see you post off topic again.
Btw...thanks for the bump.
|

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:21:00 -
[51] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:Yes...I didn't think about this change. This could completely change the dynamic of shield vs armor tanking for the purposes of PVP. I would think the shields of one would produce some level of damage to an unshielded ship. I can imagine an FC giving the order - "Ramming speed!" hehe Yes. Such a change in dynamic is called GÇ£massive imbalanceGÇ¥.
Yes...Most probably. Most all PVP happens out of armor tanks. From what I understand. And I'm not arguing against that at all. It's a true testament to a game that gives the tools where the players end up with a 'culture' of sorts because one type of fit generally performs better in PVP than another.
This sort of dynamic change would seem to really change the current armor tanking pvp fleets. Very interesting thought.
BTW Tippa - I want to thank you for the link that you provide in your profile. I have used that link to help learn more about EVE when I first started playing. I actually have saved a copy of it and refer to it occasionally. Thank you for providing that. |

Muestereate
Minions LLC
173
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:31:00 -
[52] - Quote
Bumping is overpowered allready |

March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1241
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:35:00 -
[53] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Ships would explode without a shot being fired, especially on the Jita 4-4 undock. except that Jita 4-4 undock will be clean after 1 day after this change came to server
One more reason to split markets! The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:39:00 -
[54] - Quote
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:Heh, it would make fully-plated, MWD Battleships hilarious to just plow into anything smaller (cool, a way to gank mining ships without getting concorded).
Warp a fleet of 50 freighters onto the 4-4 undock, and watch everything be destroyed for km around.
Warp a Titan into the centre of a subcap fleet - instant AOE DD back in the game.
Seige your dreadnaughts as an enemy fleet warps on top of them, and watch the fleet splatter like bugs on a windshield.
Better make sure you're in-cyno doesn't get killed, cos the "drop at 0 on the sun effect" will mean instantly crushed ship, no-matter what you are flying.
And the the hilarity of seeing a cap fleet cyno in, and immediatly all blow up.
Jeeze yes this would cause much havoc in fleet doctrines. And I didn't even think of the effects of the sun. One of the main questions I get when showing EVE to friends, is "Why doesn't the ships get blown up getting so close to the sun?" |

Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
199
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:40:00 -
[55] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote: Btw...thanks for the bump.
Lucky your portraits only show both your faces, if you have your way that could have caused some structural damage (maybe even someone might have blown up)  |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:41:00 -
[56] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:Bumping is overpowered allready
So lets add the rule that collisions cause reprisals from CONCORD. I fully understand that this would be unmanageable and completely exploitable, but this is a 'What If' thread. |

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1589
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:43:00 -
[57] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:You are banned from replying in this thread.  Enjoy the rest of YOU day. * Your
I'm not banned from anything.
Enjoy the rest of your day. [/quote]
Yes...you are. From this thread. I don't want to see you post off topic again.
Btw...thanks for the bump. [/quote]
I haven't posted off topic. And here I am again posting.
Incidentally, this idea is as dumb as the one about ships colliding with each other causing damage to each other.
Oh that's the same thing this is about... brilliant.
You're welcome for the bump to a very bad thread.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
"Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1589
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:44:00 -
[58] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:Muestereate wrote:Bumping is overpowered allready So lets add the rule that collisions cause reprisals from CONCORD. I fully understand that this would be unmanageable and completely exploitable, but this is a 'What If' thread.
Malcolm Shinhwa wrote:How would it be if we piloted unicorns around a meadow.. and other useless "what if" questions next time on GD.
"Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:49:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:You are banned from replying in this thread.  Enjoy the rest of YOU day. * Your I'm not banned from anything. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Yes...you are. From this thread. I don't want to see you post off topic again.
Btw...thanks for the bump. [/quote]
I haven't posted off topic. And here I am again posting.
Incidentally, this idea is as dumb as the one about ships colliding with each other causing damage to each other.
Oh that's the same thing this is about... brilliant.
You're welcome for the bump to a very bad thread.
Enjoy the rest of your day. [/quote]
LMAO....your tears are so enjoyed! You did it again. Thank you!
Keep on bumping.
Oh...did you see the post about split markets? I bet you have something nonconstructive to say about that too. LOL
|

Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
1591
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:50:00 -
[60] - Quote
Vanity Tian wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Vanity Tian wrote:You are banned from replying in this thread.  Enjoy the rest of YOU day. * Your I'm not banned from anything. Enjoy the rest of your day. Yes...you are. From this thread. I don't want to see you post off topic again. Btw...thanks for the bump. I haven't posted off topic. And here I am again posting. Incidentally, this idea is as dumb as the one about ships colliding with each other causing damage to each other. Oh that's the same thing this is about... brilliant. You're welcome for the bump to a very bad thread. Enjoy the rest of your day.
LMAO....your tears are so enjoyed! You did it again. Thank you!
Keep on bumping.
Oh...did you see the post about split markets? I bet you have something nonconstructive to say about that too. LOL [/quote]
There is nothing constructive in this thread. "Grr Kimmi-á Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide
www.eve-radio.com -áJoin Eve Radio channel in game! |

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
264
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:55:00 -
[61] - Quote
Mourn LeBlade wrote:This is a great idea. We used to do this all the time in Mechwarrior....when all was lost, collide with a target and then destroy the reactor!! It would actually add a lot to small gang tactics where there would be an additional advantage to using ranged weapons.
I do remember at some point in Mechwarrior 4 (can't remember if it was Vengeance or Mercs) there were modules you could attach that would allow you to self-crit and cause a butt-load of splash damage kamikaze style. Too bad it took, what ten years for the franchise to make a return with MWO. At least it did, and from what I heard, it's a very good return. |

Vanity Tian
Clandestine Management Group SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:59:00 -
[62] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Ships would explode without a shot being fired, especially on the Jita 4-4 undock. except that Jita 4-4 undock will be clean after 1 day after this change came to server One more reason to split markets!
The way that ships cluster around trade hub undocks was a complete surprise to me when I first started playing. Imagine my amazement the first time I flew into Jita 4-4....on a weekend no less.
With that said....such a dynamic of collisions and CONCORD reprisals would completely change the way gankers, war deccers, and anyone else I am missing that does this would play their game. I could see whole ship fit doctrines change to a longer range setup. That might be naive of me though. I'm really not sure how those types of gamers set their ships up and the strategies they use.
|

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
16806
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:11:00 -
[63] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Ships would explode without a shot being fired, especially on the Jita 4-4 undock. except that Jita 4-4 undock will be clean after 1 day after this change came to server In your dreams, past events in Jita say otherwise, you'd have thought people would have avoided Jita like the plague when burn Jita took place, CCP even put a warning about it on the login screen, did people avoid it? Nope, they complained about the rash of ganking instead, and were ridiculed for being sheep
Quote:One more reason to split markets! They're already split on a regional basis, Amarr, Dodixie and Rens are also market hubs, there's many lesser hubs as well.
|
|

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
929

|
Posted - 2014.02.27 20:24:00 -
[64] - Quote
As there have been numerous discussions on this topic in the past and still a few going on in the present, and on top of that this thread is in the wrong forum section, it gets a lock.
The rules: 16. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.
As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread. ISD Ezwal Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |