Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13649
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:12:09 -
[1] - Quote
Hey folks. While we were implementing the Stasis Grappler module we dug into some of the code governing orbiting and movement commands. While we were there we saw a clear path to making the orbit command act in a more logical fashion.
As of the March patch, when you use the orbit command and your speed or orbit radius changes, the plane of the orbit will no longer re-randomize. This means you will no longer switch direction when turning on a propulsion module, and stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes.
We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers. However now the orbit command will no longer freak out whenever your speed changes, which should bring it in line with reasonable expectations for how it should behave.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
trenny jr
Hoplite Brigade Starkmanir Unification
16
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:19:10 -
[2] - Quote
What a time to be alive |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2579
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:20:32 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. While we were implementing the Stasis Grappler module we dug into some of the code governing orbiting and movement commands. While we were there we saw a clear path to making the orbit command act in a more logical fashion. As of the March patch, when you use the orbit command and your speed or orbit radius changes, the plane of the orbit will no longer re-randomize. This means you will no longer switch direction when turning on a propulsion module, and stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers. However now the orbit command will no longer freak out whenever your speed changes, which should bring it in line with reasonable expectations for how it should behave.
Can't wait for some bitervet to be mad because the command can't make us do a u-turn. |
Albert Madullier
Trillium Invariant Honorable Third Party
38
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
good change, its been a problem for a while |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2347
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:22:32 -
[5] - Quote
Very cool stuff.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Syco Phantic
Wild Sentinels Honorable Third Party
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:24:47 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:we dug into some of the code governing orbiting and movement commands.
We = Zarvox? |
Zarvox Toral
Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill Apocalypse Now.
21
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:25:04 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. While we were implementing the Stasis Grappler module we dug into some of the code governing orbiting and movement commands. While we were there we saw a clear path to making the orbit command act in a more logical fashion. As of the March patch, when you use the orbit command and your speed or orbit radius changes, the plane of the orbit will no longer re-randomize. This means you will no longer switch direction when turning on a propulsion module, and stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers. However now the orbit command will no longer freak out whenever your speed changes, which should bring it in line with reasonable expectations for how it should behave.
DUDE. You have made my day, probably my year too.
Thanks so much. Amazing work. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17312
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:25:55 -
[8] - Quote
Its the little things that count.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Mr Hyde113
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
268
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:26:05 -
[9] - Quote
I'm okay trading this for the Heavy Stasis Grappler. Not like web pulsing was ever really THAT effective against THE FRIGATE MENACE.
Mr Hyde - Candidate for CSM XI
Youtube Channel
Twitter
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1810
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:36:33 -
[10] - Quote
I never realised how annoying I found this behaviour until I made it go away, and now it seems like this is how it should have always worked.
baltec1 wrote:Its the little things that count. Must... resist... TWSS...
"This one time, on patch day..."
@ccp_masterplan | Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
|
|
|
Nalles
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
25
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:39:54 -
[11] - Quote
Oh.... My...... God..... Yes please! |
Mizhara Del'thul
T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan
605
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:43:04 -
[12] - Quote
Did you find whatever sub-commands are hiding in the orbit function that accelerates you directly into the nearest collidable object? That was the primary motivator to learn manual piloting back in the day. |
Arla Sarain
748
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:46:40 -
[13] - Quote
Wow. The future is now. |
big miker
Rifterlings Zero.Four Ops
434
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 13:56:57 -
[14] - Quote
Bad change to be honest. I'm all for piloting skill / knowledge, but this takes away one of those cool tricks which again seperates good pilots from bad pilots. This is a major buff to any ******** interceptor pilot around hitting the orbit button. Energy neutralizers are a MUST HAVE if you are flying a large ship, since the web trick won't work at all after the change.
Latest video: Ferocious 8.0 'Officer' Nightmare!
|
Mister Ripley
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
148
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:14:02 -
[15] - Quote
Awesome change!!!
big miker wrote:Bad change to be honest. I'm all for piloting skill / knowledge, but this takes away one of those cool tricks which again seperates good pilots from bad pilots. This is a major buff to any ******** interceptor pilot around hitting the orbit button. Energy neutralizers are a MUST HAVE if you are flying a large ship, since the web trick won't work at all after the change. There's always one...
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2266
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:16:19 -
[16] - Quote
Great change!
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
big miker
Rifterlings Zero.Four Ops
434
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:16:37 -
[17] - Quote
Mister Ripley wrote:Awesome change!!! big miker wrote:Bad change to be honest. I'm all for piloting skill / knowledge, but this takes away one of those cool tricks which again seperates good pilots from bad pilots. This is a major buff to any ******** interceptor pilot around hitting the orbit button. Energy neutralizers are a MUST HAVE if you are flying a large ship, since the web trick won't work at all after the change. There's always one...
I asume you have the same experience flying solo battleships against the frigate menace?
Latest video: Ferocious 8.0 'Officer' Nightmare!
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2579
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:25:23 -
[18] - Quote
Mister Ripley wrote:Awesome change!!! big miker wrote:Bad change to be honest. I'm all for piloting skill / knowledge, but this takes away one of those cool tricks which again seperates good pilots from bad pilots. This is a major buff to any ******** interceptor pilot around hitting the orbit button. Energy neutralizers are a MUST HAVE if you are flying a large ship, since the web trick won't work at all after the change. There's always one...
Called it early. |
Bandalon Ominus
Splinter Cell Operations inPanic
20
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:26:50 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers.
I still highly advise to increase the tickrate to at least 4/s to make manual piloting a nonsluggish experiece, or at least consider 2/s.. I know EVE isnt supppsed to be a twitch game but irresponsiveness is not an adequate and enjoyable way of achieving that.. Its 2016! Servers should be able to handle that. Going from any responsive game to EVE is quite an off putting experiece.
id rather have a bigger chance of tidi while having a much much better experience during (lets be fair) the majority of the time where there is no tidi.
|
Ayuren Aakiwa
Sudden Death. Exodus.
112
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:28:34 -
[20] - Quote
+1 now you just need to fix the tick rate for manual piloting input so there isn't lag and my apm can shine ty |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2579
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:30:34 -
[21] - Quote
Bandalon Ominus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers.
I still highly advise to increase the tickrate to at least 4/s to make manual piloting a nonsluggish experiece, or at least consider 2/s.. I know EVE isnt supppsed to be a twitch game but irresponsiveness is not an adequate and enjoyable way of achieving that.. Its 2016! Servers should be able to handle that. Going from any responsive game to EVE is quite an off putting experiece. id rather have a bigger chance of tidi while having a much much better experience during (lets be fair) the majority of the time where there is no tidi.
At how many pilots in X systems do you want TiDi to start? Because remember, each node don't handle only your system with 6 dudes in it but a bunch of systems with potentially a hundred in one of them half way across the galaxy who would still TiDi you down because the node has to handle all of that.
They also can't re-map nodes on the fly unless they made a change I can't remember about. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13665
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 14:32:21 -
[22] - Quote
Bandalon Ominus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers.
I still highly advise to increase the tickrate to at least 4/s to make manual piloting a nonsluggish experiece, or at least consider 2/s.. I know EVE isnt supppsed to be a twitch game but irresponsiveness is not an adequate and enjoyable way of achieving that.. Its 2016! Servers should be able to handle that. Going from any responsive game to EVE is quite an off putting experiece. id rather have a bigger chance of tidi while having a much much better experience during (lets be fair) the majority of the time where there is no tidi. I'd absolutely love to do that, but it's also not a trivial task and would reduce our performance headroom quite a bit.
Hopefully someday.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
138
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:07:12 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: I'd absolutely love to do that, but it's also not a trivial task and would reduce our performance headroom quite a bit.
Hopefully someday.
This is going to sound snippy, but I promise its not! Thanks for a genuine and honest response to a random question. I love hearing from you Dev-types and it really makes my day when I get a regular, conversational post.
Thanks :)
Cedric
|
Esnaelc Sin'led
The Unchained Club
52
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:09:26 -
[24] - Quote
MORE MORE MORE of those 'little tweaks' PLEASEEE
GÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑ
You could as well bend over the tracking mecanics code. GÖÑ |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
320
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:10:48 -
[25] - Quote
big miker wrote: I asume you have the same experience flying solo battleships against the frigate menace?
Found the 0.1%
|
Tragot Gomndor
Vision Inc Hole Control
67
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 15:29:19 -
[26] - Quote
As long the world visibily in a bunch of bubbles is like zero and there is no keypress for double click the center of screen, there will be no real manual flying for me...
NONONONONONO
TO
CAPS IN HIGHSEC
NO
|
Zechariah Bragg
Jaded.
335
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 16:38:00 -
[27] - Quote
Today IS a good day to die!
If you don't live in W-Space.....your opinions are invalid.
|
Zarvox Toral
Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill Apocalypse Now.
22
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 16:42:40 -
[28] - Quote
big miker wrote:Bad change to be honest. I'm all for piloting skill / knowledge, but this takes away one of those cool tricks which again seperates good pilots from bad pilots. This is a major buff to any ******** interceptor pilot around hitting the orbit button. Energy neutralizers are a MUST HAVE if you are flying a large ship, since the web trick won't work at all after the change.
With all due respect, the mechanic was broken. Yes, people should manually orbit. Yes, the broken mechanic did provide certain playstyles with a way of killing hard to hit tacklers. It doesn't take away from the fact that the only reason this gave certain playstyles (yours, mine, and others) an advantage was because of it was broken.
Keeping a mechanic broken, when it can easily be fixed, just because it benefits certain people's playstyles (including mine) doesn't make any sense to me. Fair enough if you want to lobby a new way of handling tacklers from a solo BS perspective, no worries,, but I think defending a clearly stupidly broken mechanic is not the way to go about it imo. |
Gliese Casserres
Fistful of Finns Paisti Syndicate
37
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 16:45:20 -
[29] - Quote
Finally I can stop cursing in anomalies. Hurray for logical orbit mechanics! |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3490
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 16:52:47 -
[30] - Quote
So long, web trick
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1064
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:08:26 -
[31] - Quote
Oh noes!!!111eleven
That was one of those undockumented things that could make your day and confuse pilots that would use the orbit command in the first place.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Kagehisa Shintaro
Back Door Burglars The Otherworld
21
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:32:30 -
[32] - Quote
Does this mean the end of Webbing Freighters off gates through Uedama/Niarja (to name a few)? I know the trick is used in combat, but Freighters can be made to warp backwards in certain situations, making it relatively safe to travel through certain areas if you have a webbing partner. Will we now have to wait til the Freighter is fully, or almost, aligned in the right direction?
Any company can ship. We space ship. - CCP Guard
|
Zarvox Toral
Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill Apocalypse Now.
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:36:30 -
[33] - Quote
Kagehisa Shintaro wrote:Does this mean the end of Webbing Freighters off gates through Uedama/Niarja (to name a few)? I know the trick is used in combat, but Freighters can be made to warp backwards in certain situations, making it relatively safe to travel through certain areas if you have a webbing partner. Will we now have to wait til the Freighter is fully, or almost, aligned in the right direction?
This will still work - unrelated phenomena :D |
Masao Kurata
Perkone Caldari State
335
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:42:09 -
[34] - Quote
Kagehisa Shintaro wrote:Does this mean the end of Webbing Freighters off gates through Uedama/Niarja (to name a few)? I know the trick is used in combat, but Freighters can be made to warp backwards in certain situations, making it relatively safe to travel through certain areas if you have a webbing partner. Will we now have to wait til the Freighter is fully, or almost, aligned in the right direction?
If you were orbiting with your freighter to get into warp I hate to tell you this but you were doing it wrong. |
Kagehisa Shintaro
Back Door Burglars The Otherworld
21
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 17:50:16 -
[35] - Quote
I'm not supposed to orbit my friend in his Rapier? Doh!!!
Any company can ship. We space ship. - CCP Guard
|
Annia Aurel
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 18:07:01 -
[36] - Quote
There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
Now, the error would be very simple to fix by calculating velocities based on position changes between server ticks and factoring in the corresponding rotation (just subtract this rotation from the present wrong formula, and voila, everything is correct).
Now, it can be argued that a) this will complicate calculations and b) it is desireable from a gameplay point of view.
a) Can only be answered by the devs
b) Is up for debate. I never get why orbiting in a fast frigate should give me any problems with tracking. A change of the formula would benefit people who actively pilot their ships, would benefit people in smaller ships (new players anyone?) and would make much more sense to the dedicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
33289
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 18:20:23 -
[37] - Quote
it's 2016
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
138
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 18:23:58 -
[38] - Quote
I'm surprised that with all of the deeper mechanics and code they have been looking at that they haven't looked at gun tracking and some of the other formulas. I'm sure there is room for improvement somewhere in there, whether its for server performance, or realism or something.
As far as I know, after the end of POS's once Citadels are a thing, the tracking formula is one of the only things not touched since the beginning of the game!
Cedric
|
Zarvox Toral
Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill Apocalypse Now.
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:16:28 -
[39] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
Now, the error would be very simple to fix by calculating velocities based on position changes between server ticks and factoring in the corresponding rotation (just subtract this rotation from the present wrong formula, and voila, everything is correct).
Now, it can be argued that a) this will complicate calculations and b) it is desireable from a gameplay point of view.
a) Can only be answered by the devs
b) Is up for debate. I never get why orbiting in a fast frigate should give me any problems with tracking. A change of the formula would benefit people who actively pilot their ships, would benefit people in smaller ships (new players anyone?) and would make much more sense to the dedicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts?
Absolutely agree with this. |
Esnaelc Sin'led
The Unchained Club
54
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:42:31 -
[40] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
Now, the error would be very simple to fix by calculating velocities based on position changes between server ticks and factoring in the corresponding rotation (just subtract this rotation from the present wrong formula, and voila, everything is correct).
Now, it can be argued that a) this will complicate calculations and b) it is desireable from a gameplay point of view.
a) Can only be answered by the devs
b) Is up for debate. I never get why orbiting in a fast frigate should give me any problems with tracking. A change of the formula would benefit people who actively pilot their ships, would benefit people in smaller ships (new players anyone?) and would make much more sense to the dedicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts?
That's what i was talking about with guns tracking mecanics. +1
That would add so much to the actual gameplay if it was rewrote. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17449
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 19:50:42 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. While we were implementing the Stasis Grappler module we dug into some of the code governing orbiting and movement commands. While we were there we saw a clear path to making the orbit command act in a more logical fashion. As of the March patch, when you use the orbit command and your speed or orbit radius changes, the plane of the orbit will no longer re-randomize. This means you will no longer switch direction when turning on a propulsion module, and stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers. However now the orbit command will no longer freak out whenever your speed changes, which should bring it in line with reasonable expectations for how it should behave.
Ok this is pretty ******* good
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Bandalon Ominus
Splinter Cell Operations inPanic
21
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 20:37:41 -
[42] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Bandalon Ominus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers.
I still highly advise to increase the tickrate to at least 4/s to make manual piloting a nonsluggish experiece, or at least consider 2/s.. I know EVE isnt supppsed to be a twitch game but irresponsiveness is not an adequate and enjoyable way of achieving that.. Its 2016! Servers should be able to handle that. Going from any responsive game to EVE is quite an off putting experiece. id rather have a bigger chance of tidi while having a much much better experience during (lets be fair) the majority of the time where there is no tidi. I'd absolutely love to do that, but it's also not a trivial task and would reduce our performance headroom quite a bit. Hopefully someday.
Thank you for your reply. From what I understood from Veritas this is just one server side setting (like with any game server really) that can easily be changed. Veritas indicated that right now it cannot be made adaptive however (requires server reboot /downtime to change the rate). I really hope you consider testing this on sisi. As I said, most of EVE happens outside of tidi. Increasing the tickrate might lower the threshhold for tidi due to higher load, but the trade off could very well be worth it to improve the general game experience (a lot).
Its worth noting that a tickrate increase doesnt not neccesarily increases the load proportionally. This is at least my experience with a wide variaty of game servers, though EVE may different in this regards. Again, ideally this would be testes on sisi (though you might already have :)) |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3490
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 20:46:16 -
[43] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
Now, the error would be very simple to fix by calculating velocities based on position changes between server ticks and factoring in the corresponding rotation (just subtract this rotation from the present wrong formula, and voila, everything is correct).
Now, it can be argued that a) this will complicate calculations and b) it is desireable from a gameplay point of view.
a) Can only be answered by the devs
b) Is up for debate. I never get why orbiting in a fast frigate should give me any problems with tracking. A change of the formula would benefit people who actively pilot their ships, would benefit people in smaller ships (new players anyone?) and would make much more sense to the dedicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts?
yeah i remember when i started the game it was one of the most confusing game mechanics. It is more intuitive to have a approximation of real world physics in a game (with some common scifi shortcuts) than having fantasy physics and rules. Eve sadly has fantasy physics. A stationary slicer should have a harder time hitting a orbiting slicer, than the orbiting slicer the stationary slicer.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
367
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 21:07:06 -
[44] - Quote
This is a great and thoughtful change, and it is actually a buff to the grapple mechanic coming in March...but I have to admit I am a bit sad at how many kills I've gotten from this mechanic using it to gain better tracking etc. Now if only the server tick/response times were faster and I would be the happiest camper |
Circumstantial Evidence
255
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 22:31:26 -
[45] - Quote
Bandalon Ominus wrote:... Increasing the tickrate might lower the threshhold for tidi due to higher load, but the trade off could very well be worth it to improve the general game experience (a lot). The "performance headroom" CCP Fozzie mentions might refer to players with poor connections: the current tick lets more players be reasonably competitive.
|
Alexis Nightwish
404
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 22:48:23 -
[46] - Quote
At least something good came out of the grappler module.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Bandalon Ominus
Splinter Cell Operations inPanic
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 23:21:52 -
[47] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Bandalon Ominus wrote:... Increasing the tickrate might lower the threshhold for tidi due to higher load, but the trade off could very well be worth it to improve the general game experience (a lot). The "performance headroom" CCP Fozzie mentions might refer to players with poor connections: the current tick lets more players be reasonably competitive.
Doubt this, but Fozzie could clarify. Either way: Max global ping is around 500 ms (but generally under 250ms, and under 100ms within your continent). 1/s tickrate is extremely low. I played quake against venezualans on 250ms ping on a 25/s tickrate server. From what I uderstand the packetsize in EVEis rather trivial. Also, clientside sendrate could differ from serverside tickrate, depending inter alia on how clientside commands / packets and their quieing are treated.
|
Alhira Katserna
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2121
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 23:38:31 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. While we were implementing [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=468244]As of the March patch, when you use the orbit command and your speed or orbit radius changes, the plane of the orbit will no longer re-randomize. This means you will no longer switch direction when turning on a propulsion module, and stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes.
Can you please provide a way for us to change the orbit direction? Some people had a good use for the way it works right now. Even though this is a good update i would approve a way to change the orbit in some way. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2965
|
Posted - 2016.02.09 23:46:51 -
[49] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
Now, the error would be very simple to fix by calculating velocities based on position changes between server ticks and factoring in the corresponding rotation (just subtract this rotation from the present wrong formula, and voila, everything is correct).
Now, it can be argued that a) this will complicate calculations and b) it is desireable from a gameplay point of view.
a) Can only be answered by the devs
b) Is up for debate. I never get why orbiting in a fast frigate should give me any problems with tracking. A change of the formula would benefit people who actively pilot their ships, would benefit people in smaller ships (new players anyone?) and would make much more sense to the dedicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts? This is because of the EVE physics model. Ships in EVE do not have an actual heading. The physics server represents them as a sphere with a velocity. The local client then uses that to apply a graphical heading onto your ship within constraints. This is what causes things like freighters warping 'backwards' since the backwards is only a local graphical artefact, not something the server sees.
To change the entire physics model is a non trivial exercise.
Alhira Katserna wrote: Can you please provide a way for us to change the orbit direction? Some people had a good use for the way it works right now. Even though this is a good update i would approve a way to change the orbit in some way.
Double click and then start a new orbit once you've changed direction? You are literally asking for manual piloting which already exists. |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 00:02:40 -
[50] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:To change the entire physics model is a non trivial exercise. If I'm reading this right Annia's suggestion is to have the gun tracking formula guess at the ship's "real" heading using the ship's velocity during the previous tick. I suspect it is impractical, but it wouldn't involve changing the entire physics model. More like making an addendum to it. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2966
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 00:07:19 -
[51] - Quote
Helene Fidard wrote: If I'm reading this right Annia's suggestion is to have the gun tracking formula guess at the ship's "real" heading using the ship's velocity during the previous tick. I suspect it is impractical, but it wouldn't involve changing the entire physics model. More like making an addendum to it.
And that is how you get spaghetti code that then breaks. :) |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
1093
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 01:39:16 -
[52] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. While we were implementing the Stasis Grappler module we dug into some of the code governing orbiting and movement commands. While we were there we saw a clear path to making the orbit command act in a more logical fashion. As of the March patch, when you use the orbit command and your speed or orbit radius changes, the plane of the orbit will no longer re-randomize. This means you will no longer switch direction when turning on a propulsion module, and stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers. However now the orbit command will no longer freak out whenever your speed changes, which should bring it in line with reasonable expectations for how it should behave. OH MY GOD YES
I've always been annoyed by this, but I never would have thought it could be fixed. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
103
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 02:18:11 -
[53] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes.
Would this statement include the use of webifiers to reduce time to warp for large or capital?
|
IcyMidnight
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
11
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 03:11:41 -
[54] - Quote
This is a great change!
Why not just set the orbit plane as the one that minimizes the change in heading, though? If I go through the trouble of setting up my approach to be tangent to the orbit plane I want, why not just give it to me? |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
340
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 05:28:09 -
[55] - Quote
A very welcome change. Thank you |
Esnaelc Sin'led
The Unchained Club
57
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 07:41:54 -
[56] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. Would this statement include the use of webifiers to reduce time to warp for large or capital?
Since when the word "direction" is a synonym for "speed" ?
No, this change is not about speed decrease when webbed. |
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
208
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 09:39:14 -
[57] - Quote
Bloody awesome, good sir.
Pain is weakness leaving the body
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
|
Mister Ripley
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
155
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 11:17:42 -
[58] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Alhira Katserna wrote: Can you please provide a way for us to change the orbit direction? Some people had a good use for the way it works right now. Even though this is a good update i would approve a way to change the orbit in some way.
Double click and then start a new orbit once you've changed direction? You are literally asking for manual piloting which already exists. But this will apply a new orbit vector to my ship.
This change makes it so that there will be no new orbit vector every time my ship changes its max. speed while orbiting something.
The initial vector according to your current maximum speed will still be reapplied every time you hit orbit. |
Captain Campion
Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 13:53:50 -
[59] - Quote
I'm not quite following what this change means, any chance you could dumb it down for me, perhaps with pictures? :D |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1843
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:45:10 -
[60] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. Would this statement include the use of webifiers to reduce time to warp for large or capital?
wat.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1847
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:50:36 -
[61] - Quote
Captain Campion wrote:I'm not quite following what this change means, any chance you could dumb it down for me, perhaps with pictures? :D
Ever notice that if you're just in orbit around something and you turn on your MWD, sometimes you fly off in a significantly different direction/orbital plane than you had previously been flying in?
This fixes that.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Mister Ripley
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
155
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:40:58 -
[62] - Quote
Captain Campion wrote:I'm not quite following what this change means, any chance you could dumb it down for me, perhaps with pictures? :D Now:
- Click orbit -> ship orbits in a certain inclination
- Changing your max. speed makes your ship change its orbit inclination and sometimes even the orbit direction (clockwise to counter clockwise or vice versa). Here's another image, just ignore the description and look at the different orbits.
- This leads to pretty irritating situations where you activate your AB or MWD while orbiting and your ships stops, makes a u-turn and then starst orbiting with a different inclination or even direction
- Same for webbing. It can make your ship do weird **** if you orbit and get webbed.
New:
- If your max. speed changes (AB/MWD/Web), your ship will just keep orbiting with the same inclination and direction as before.
As far as I understand it the initial orbit inclanation will still be random or whatever the formula is and it will change if you hit orbit again after your max. speed changed.
SurrenderMonkey wrote:GetSirrus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. Would this statement include the use of webifiers to reduce time to warp for large or capital? wat. I think he confuses orbit direction with align direction and therefor align time. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
307
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:08:08 -
[63] - Quote
Thumbs up here. |
Daemun Khanid
Apollo Defence Industries
324
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:09:39 -
[64] - Quote
This is a change I can whole heartedly get behind. I can't count the times I felt like I would have lived through a fight had my ship not stopped mid flight to change direction, sapping my velocity and transverse speed in the process. Some people may come to the conclusion that it will potentially make kiters a little harder to kill but I don't think it's in a manner that is unreasonable or beyond expectations of how ships should be behaving in the first place.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Beta Maoye
89
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 09:27:49 -
[65] - Quote
I don't want manual orbiting. I want a dogfight mode like Valkyrie. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2907
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 17:03:17 -
[66] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
Now, the error would be very simple to fix by calculating velocities based on position changes between server ticks and factoring in the corresponding rotation (just subtract this rotation from the present wrong formula, and voila, everything is correct).
Now, it can be argued that a) this will complicate calculations and b) it is desireable from a gameplay point of view.
a) Can only be answered by the devs
b) Is up for debate. I never get why orbiting in a fast frigate should give me any problems with tracking. A change of the formula would benefit people who actively pilot their ships, would benefit people in smaller ships (new players anyone?) and would make much more sense to the dedicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts? It calculates the target's position across a static background. When orbiting a target, you see it move across the static background. If your camera is positioned relatively close to your ship and you see a target seem to briefly stop moving across the static background, regardless of what causes it to seem to stop, you will have an easier time tracking it.
I successfully used this understanding of tracking on a MWD fit Maelstrom to hit NPC frigates with 1400mm artillery at about 10km without webbing or painting, by matching my velocity briefly with theirs.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Arla Sarain
750
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 17:57:17 -
[67] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
dicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts? Huh, sounds right.
Guess it is just looking for the change in X and Y in the local space rather than the direction relative to the other observer.
Odd, I always had the impression that the angular speeds would be cumulative. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2907
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:10:45 -
[68] - Quote
There was actually a post a while back in a thread about this very topic, explaining in detail how exactly the turret mechanics in EVE at current actually are accurate with physics, and how they should not, in fact, rotate with the rotating ship. Put simply: a turret locked in place will follow the rotation of its ship, but a turret freed to turn easily and with extremely low fiction will tend to stay where it's facing rather than follow the turn of the ship.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Arla Sarain
750
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:18:19 -
[69] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:There was actually a post a while back in a thread about this very topic, explaining in detail how exactly the turret mechanics in EVE at current actually are accurate with physics, and how they should not, in fact, rotate with the rotating ship. Put simply: a turret locked in place will follow the rotation of its ship, but a turret freed to turn easily and with extremely low fiction will tend to stay where it's facing rather than follow the turn of the ship. It doesn't seem like it. The turret tracking speed is as of now a function of it's change of XYZ of in local space.
If you hold hands with another person, and just rotate around a point in between each other whilst constantly facing each other - the locations of your X1, X2 and Y1, Y2 are rotating around each other. But the observers really aren't. They don't change angular locations relative to each other, and end up constantly facing each other. If the turret was modelled after the neck/head, then it wouldn't change angular positions over time either.
I'd mock up an animation, but this seems closer to truth. Turrets do spin around the grid as a consequence of the ship changing local position, but the turret don't actually spin relative to the target, so there is no change in angular position, so no angular speed to observe. |
Mister Ripley
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
158
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:39:28 -
[70] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Method 1 Change tracking to be based on transversal velocity instead of angular velocity. Seems most of the playerbase believes it is based on transversal anyway. I'll explain: Consider a Wolf is orbiting you at 5km and a Jaguar is orbiting you at 20km. Both have the same sig radius and are moving at the same velocity. Tracking is based on angular velocity, meaning that just as that Jaguar appears to be moving 1/4th as fast as the Wolf (when your camera is zoomed in on your ship), your turrets will in fact track that Jaguar 4x as well as they track the Wolf.
If tracking were based on transversal velocity, there would be no difference in your ability to track either target as they are both moving at the same intrinsic velocity.
This doesn't make sense, since a target farther away is actualy moving slower if we talk about tracking. Tracking beeing the degree that your guns have to turn to keep track of a target. |
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
1096
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 03:09:52 -
[71] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. Would this statement include the use of webifiers to reduce time to warp for large or capital? No it wouldn't, as when you're aligning your velocity vector is already along the warp path. This has no effect on the use of stasis webs for that. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2908
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 03:39:19 -
[72] - Quote
Mister Ripley wrote:This doesn't make sense, since a target farther away is actualy moving slower if we talk about tracking. Tracking beeing the degree that your guns have to turn to keep track of a target. Only angular velocity uses apparent/relative motion. Transversal velocity uses intrinsic motion and only functions in Euclidean physics which all games run on, but which real life does not. EVE simulates angular velocity tracking using extraneous calculations in a Euclidean engine, and switching to transversal tracking would inded have the effect I explained, as well as reducing server load as far as tracking calculations.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2908
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 03:44:03 -
[73] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:If you hold hands with another person, and just rotate around a point in between each other whilst constantly facing each other - the locations of your X1, X2 and Y1, Y2 are rotating around each other. But the observers really aren't. They don't change angular locations relative to each other, and end up constantly facing each other. If the turret was modelled after the neck/head, then it wouldn't change angular positions over time either. Get on a merry-go-round, get it spinning, and then stick your arm out and try to point at any part of the merry-go-round. While those parts appear stationary from the vantage point of your eyes, which are anchored to your rotating head, your arm is much more loosely anchored and will need to push against inertia and continually adjust its alignment in order to continue pointing at the object.
Now point at an object in the distance. It appears to be moving to your eyes, but you can much more easily remain pointing at it--at least briefly before your body turns too far to allow your arm to point at it.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
33293
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 08:44:28 -
[74] - Quote
Reaver you're confused.
Transversal is a speed. It doesn't account for distance. But Angular V does, and it's Transversal divided by distance.
Angular V is in radians. So is turret tracking. They're both the transversal compared to distance.
Angular V is also the same for both bodies at the same time. You don't want to mess with that.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
33293
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 08:52:20 -
[75] - Quote
Transversal = arc, in meters per second Distance = radius, in meters Angular V = arc / radius = radians per second
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2320
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 10:03:28 -
[76] - Quote
A good change to finally make EVE make more sense. You can still do it.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Nicola Arman
Lacuna. AII ShaII Perish
61
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 11:01:27 -
[77] - Quote
Great change! +1 Fozzie |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
427
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:22:17 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers. However now the orbit command will no longer freak out whenever your speed changes, which should bring it in line with reasonable expectations for how it should behave.
Well said
Eve online is :
A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online
D) CCP Games pay More to win at skill training time, now with instant gratification
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
Camios
Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic
170
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:22:40 -
[79] - Quote
That's great, I've been saying this for ages!
Yours sincerely A Happy Customer. |
Faruzen en Divalone
Reborn Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 23:40:47 -
[80] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
Now, the error would be very simple to fix by calculating velocities based on position changes between server ticks and factoring in the corresponding rotation (just subtract this rotation from the present wrong formula, and voila, everything is correct).
Now, it can be argued that a) this will complicate calculations and b) it is desireable from a gameplay point of view.
a) Can only be answered by the devs
b) Is up for debate. I never get why orbiting in a fast frigate should give me any problems with tracking. A change of the formula would benefit people who actively pilot their ships, would benefit people in smaller ships (new players anyone?) and would make much more sense to the dedicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts?
Now this would be a problem. Imagine server asking for relative positions of both ships between ticks (1 sec minimum + 2x ping time), and then calculating the damage and hit chance (second tick - we are over 2 sec now). Firing a gun would thus take several seconds to finish. Several seconds latency is not an enjoyable experience in a fight.
However I sure agree with you on the physics part, it would be great but I am afraid its not possible now. But I would like to hear an answer from dev on this too. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2986
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 00:00:03 -
[81] - Quote
Faruzen en Divalone wrote: Now this would be a problem. Imagine server asking for relative positions of both ships between ticks (1 sec minimum + 2x ping time), and then calculating the damage and hit chance (second tick - we are over 2 sec now). Firing a gun would thus take several seconds to finish. Several seconds latency is not an enjoyable experience in a fight.
However I sure agree with you on the physics part, it would be great but I am afraid its not possible now. But I would like to hear an answer from dev on this too.
Uh, why would it be using server tick timing. All that data is stored and calculated server side, not locally. Storing it locally would allow massive hacking. However as has been pointed out, inertia also would throw the guns off because they can rotate independent of the ship and therefore the ship turning impacts on their pointing. |
Ixion
IONSTAR Yulai Federation
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 22:57:24 -
[82] - Quote
This orbit change is the best thing I have heard of in years! |
Cynthia Aishai
Aishai Industry Inc
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 08:17:20 -
[83] - Quote
What a day. What a lovely day |
Soltys
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
93
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 15:52:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. While we were implementing the Stasis Grappler module we dug into some of the code governing orbiting and movement commands. While we were there we saw a clear path to making the orbit command act in a more logical fashion. As of the March patch, when you use the orbit command and your speed or orbit radius changes, the plane of the orbit will no longer re-randomize. This means you will no longer switch direction when turning on a propulsion module, and stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers. However now the orbit command will no longer freak out whenever your speed changes, which should bring it in line with reasonable expectations for how it should behave.
Any chances you could peek and consider this suggestion along the way as well ?
Jita Flipping Inc.: Solmp / Kovl
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |