EVE Search - Bumping is a joke,

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Bumping is a joke,

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
SilentBladez Imperial Knights The Crimson Federation	Posted - 2007.03.13 04:41:00 - [1] Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot.
Esurnir Amarr Bears Inc FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.13 04:51:00 - [2] Heard that bumping will one day cause damage to ships (-someone- saw a video of a frig ramming a bc). But that's a silly rumor I heard, if -anybody- could confirm ?! ---- Quote: Thou shall pew pew. Book of Revelation 12, 51
Xeliya Dark-Rising Fallen Souls	Posted - 2007.03.13 04:54:00 - [3] I would be nice to see the bumper take sever damage but I think after the Nano nerf, bumping will go back to the old days where it didn't do much. We just need the nano nerf faster, its getting very old to see Phoons doing 10km/s.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.03.13 05:00:00 - [4] Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! Unless those trucks have shields, warp drives, and exist only in a computer spaceship pew! pew! game, in which case they'll just bump harmlessly off each other. I once sat next to a physicist on a train, so I should know. Collision damage would bring up some interesting problems in HighSec. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Kylar Renpurs	Posted - 2007.03.13 05:05:00 - [5] Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 13/03/2007 05:01:48 Originally by: SilentBladez Collision damage would bring up some interesting problems in HighSec. Oh god yes,,, pictures a domi plowing an indy in half, then scooping the loot and fleeing And i mean heck, what about when two players undock at the same time, with the ships appearing on top of each other. Or better yet, when WTZ lands you on top of the station and flings you off at 13km/s. I can imagine the killmail, Victim: Kylar Renpurs Weapon Used: A huge station
SilentBladez Imperial Knights The Crimson Federation	Posted - 2007.03.13 05:07:00 - [6] Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! Unless those trucks have shields, warp drives, and exist only in a computer spaceship pew! pew! game, in which case they'll just bump harmlessly off each other. I once sat next to a physicist on a train, so I should know. Collision damage would bring up some interesting problems in HighSec. well If your going to design a space game and include 0 gravity and asteroid belts , moons , suns, planets etc, why wouldn't you include some what of real physics? speaking figurely I was trying to prove a point and yes even with shields I believe it wouldn't matter because of the size of the object and velocity of the mass.
SilentBladez Imperial Knights The Crimson Federation	Posted - 2007.03.13 05:09:00 - [7] Originally by: Kylar Renpurs Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 13/03/2007 05:01:48 Originally by: SilentBladez Collision damage would bring up some interesting problems in HighSec. Oh god yes,,, pictures a domi plowing an indy in half, then scooping the loot and fleeing And i mean heck, what about when two players undock at the same time, with the ships appearing on top of each other. Or better yet, when WTZ lands you on top of the station and flings you off at 13km/s. I can imagine the killmail, Victim: Kylar Renpurs Weapon Used: A huge station Well, then we should get frigs with torps back and make it even.
Grawshellar	Posted - 2007.03.13 05:18:00 - [8] Shields.... they can take a slug thats 4.6 ft across, thats moving fast enough to cover a 200km distance nearly instantaneously, and if its not a dead-on hit (crit) you won't completely deplete the energy of the shield. (a single round from a tempest with a 1400mm arty cannon shooting a single shot at a frig) I'd say that the energy imparted from a BS moving a few hundred meters a second would probably be a tickle in comparison.... any physics geeks care to do the math to back me up? Not that a BS moving at 300 m/s wouldn't impart a massive amount of force, its just that it wouldn't be jack compared to the energy from a singly 1400mm artillery round.
Zatch Gallente Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2007.03.13 05:20:00 - [9] Edited by: Zatch on 13/03/2007 05:18:31 The issue here isn't realism, bumping something at 10km/s should result in some sort of severe damage if, say, both ships are out of armor and shields. However, flagging people for bumping others or even causing damage is a really bad idea. The undocking example, warp to zero, even just traffic jams where people don't land on each other but are trying to move in opposite directions, or orbiting a station/stargate, there's simply too much that could easily go wrong. Edit: Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2 (one half mass times velocity squared.) The velocity component is squared, so it has a significantly higher effect on the final kinetic energy than the mass does. ----- MLCalc Creator HW2/EVE Mod Team Leader
Sheriff Jones	Posted - 2007.03.13 05:34:00 - [10] Bubble bubble bubble! People love bubbles in this game, where i might add are no real bubbles! Anyway, High sec docking problems. Put on a bubble, around the station, a "bipolar anti crash field" so to speak where Scotty, our lovely plumber looking friend(dunno why he looks like Maaaario from the infamous Bro's), guides billions of ships around a..say....10km area. When you're out of that area, you're free to go and plow and pew pew and...whatnot. In less then 0.5...move! I always try to move even if there's no damage yet. It's just realistic in my mind to avoid the big freckin' battleship infront of me. Anyhoop, damage, yes. Please. /sign and whatever the cool kids do. In the meantime, at an asteroid belt far far away...poor cans

Xtro 2 Caldari Pre-nerfed Tactics	Posted - 2007.03.13 05:37:00 - [11] bumping is only a joke when you see something small and fast bump something much larger, if its the other way round or same size ships then leave it as is. Xtro 2 - Tactically Insane Tradesman. Insanity, or madness, is a semi-permanent, severe mental disorder.
Grawshellar	Posted - 2007.03.13 05:54:00 - [12] Edited by: Grawshellar on 13/03/2007 05:52:48 nvm math was off somewhere
Morium Blue Order of the Lost Souls	Posted - 2007.03.13 05:56:00 - [13] Bumping, at least in the guise we presently see it, is something that I suspect evolved unintentionally out of the game mechanics, a bit like 'tricking-jumping' did in Call of Duty or CS. Thing is, that makes it valuable. It's something people practice to get good at. Eve is a hardcore game and you need 'emergent' gameplay mechanics to appeal to hardcore gamers. Things they can practice and find new ways of doing better. So next time a nano-BS bumps me off a station, I'll probably be as annoyed as the next person - but once I think about it, I'll accept it as part and parcel of what's good in Eve. (though I would say the present Nano-trend probably takes bumping a little far, come to think of it).
Najenna Minmatar Caldari Deep Space Ventures	Posted - 2007.03.13 07:35:00 - [14] I for one agree that damage should happen when rammig things. But there are 2 sides to a coin. If C.C.P. did implament some type of damage being done when ramming I see a big headache coming. You thought gate camps and contract scams were bad? Pfft.. those are nothing compaired to what would happen if they do put that in game. For example. I am flying my Tempest and all of a sudden I see 5 frigs all together and a hauler with them. They all have mwd's on for maxing ramming speed. Now do I have to tell whats going to happen next? I think you are grasping my point. Suicide frigs would become more harmful than DD's and bam we have little kamikazes frigs flying all over eve and THAT would destroy the game.... so as much as I like the idea I have to say naay to it.. I love my Tempest to much to lose it that way. Once you get this Robotech thing in your blood its there to stay...
Eric Secundus Caldari NorwegianHeaven	Posted - 2007.03.13 07:49:00 - [15] Bumping is a lame-ass part of EVE, simple as that. It annoys me to no end that its 'approved' by most PVPers as a way to keep larger ships from warping. Its just plain destroys any immersion when larger ships can be bumped by frigates or such. I don't even care that much about the immersion factor if they fix it another way, just fix it. Make bumping hurt the smaller mass ships (take away some shield HP, like COLLISION WITH OBJECTS DO (projectiles? missiles?), or make bumping not possible (shield stops it, yaddayadda, come up with a semi scientific excuse). Bottom line: dont let a small fleet of frigates ramming a much larger ship be a viable tactic to keep it from warping. It smells of exploits and unintended gameplay. ------ Scientists claim that hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe. They are wrong. Stupidity is the most abundant substance in the universe
Draaki	Posted - 2007.03.13 08:05:00 - [16] Maybe its considered content for players who enjoy pvp. If its kept as is then why not let us be able to actually 'fly' our ships. Put thrusters on ships so we can manouver without travelling forwards.
Celeste Coeval	Posted - 2007.03.13 08:10:00 - [17] bump "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." -Albert Einstein
Paladineguru Gallente DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.13 09:20:00 - [18] Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot. while the above observation is true. I believe that if you took and wrapped a Polarized electromagnetic shield around those trucks, and also included an intertial dampening system then you would be completely wrong and being as shields basically being controlled field magnets of the same polarity then yes they would repel each other no matter the amount of inertial force. much like to magnets from your kitchen. so while you may be frustrated by being bumped into kill range and out of dock range it does make perfect sense considering the advanced technology present and the assumptions of the evolution of spaceship mechanics.
Eric Secundus Caldari NorwegianHeaven	Posted - 2007.03.13 09:40:00 - [19] Originally by: Paladineguru Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot. while the above observation is true. I believe that if you took and wrapped a Polarized electromagnetic shield around those trucks, and also included an intertial dampening system then you would be completely wrong and being as shields basically being controlled field magnets of the same polarity then yes they would repel each other no matter the amount of inertial force. much like to magnets from your kitchen. so while you may be frustrated by being bumped into kill range and out of dock range it does make perfect sense considering the advanced technology present and the assumptions of the evolution of spaceship mechanics. Good point from a scientific point of view. It still sucks *****s for immersion and gameplay though. Seeing the videos of capital ships going down while getting bumped sort of seems wrong to me. It should be epic, instead it looks more like a bunch of angry lemmings attacking a bigger opponent. Its a game, so the reasoning should go more like "This is good for gameplay, lets do it this way, then make up some pseudoscience dribble to explain it", than "This is logical scientifically speaking, lets do it this way and hope gameplay survives". ------ Scientists claim that hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe. They are wrong. Stupidity** is the most abundant substance in the universe
umop 3pisdn Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.03.13 09:47:00 - [20] Originally by: Paladineguru while the above observation is true. I believe that if you took and wrapped a Polarized electromagnetic shield around those trucks, and also included an intertial dampening system then you would be completely wrong and being as shields basically being controlled field magnets of the same polarity then yes they would repel each other no matter the amount of inertial force. much like to magnets from your kitchen. so while you may be frustrated by being bumped into kill range and out of dock range it does make perfect sense considering the advanced technology present and the assumptions of the evolution of spaceship mechanics. They have evolved to the point where ram + rockets = superspacebatteringram+3? Bumping fgt redocking cap ships = good. Bumping small ships that want a real fight = bad. Hell bumping isnt the problem.. the problem is the phoon going so fast that nothing can really hurt it... that and missles being **** for tracking.... missles are still easy mode. I mean would i really give a ** if a nanophoon could bump me 100km off station if I could hit it? no. because i would shred it. All I can do is nos it until it leaves me alone or kills me. Most ships dont have the luxury of that much nos. huggins are the only real way to gank nanophoons but they lack much tank... The thing i worry about (kinda...) is after nanophoons are nerfed... what will happen to vagas... If invention is beefed up the point where it actually affects the market at all then vagas will eventually sit at about 50-100mil... All the stabanoobs will fly them more and more as they become cheaper... this will be interesting as there is no obvious fix unlike the nanophoon (like reverting back to prekali i-stabs...) Also the only hostile ships ive seen all day were nanonightmare, 5 nanophoons, vagabond and nanodomi

Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.13 09:47:00 - [21] i could swear i one day read that bumping to prevent another ship from warping was petitionable i must have misread or things had changed, but that's what i always thought ------ Relaxed corp recruiting
ReFaN Gallente FRACTAL CLUSTER	Posted - 2007.03.13 09:49:00 - [22] Bumping is awsome, its always fun too run into someone writing BUUUMP!!! in local

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2007.03.13 09:54:00 - [23] And will bumpage damage cause concord flagging? In that case I would be pwned by them the instant I undock my Veldnought as it bumps anyone in the undocking area... How nice Help me help you .

Eric Secundus Caldari NorwegianHeaven	Posted - 2007.03.13 10:21:00 - [24] Originally by: Chribba And will bumpage damage cause concord flagging? In that case I would be pwned by them the instant I undock my Veldnought as it bumps anyone in the undocking area... How nice I want a Veldnaugh like yours Chribba! (You are my hero, I'm still in a lowly covetor ) ------ Scientists claim that hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe. They are wrong. Stupidity is the most abundant substance in the universe
Araxmas Black Lance Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.03.13 11:28:00 - [25] Collison damage is nice but when you get a fleet warping onto a stargate at 0km.... Lets just say that freindly fire via ramming will be an issue. -------- Robbie Rotten left me
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.13 11:35:00 - [26] Originally by: Zatch Edited by: Zatch on 13/03/2007 05:18:31 The issue here isn't realism, bumping something at 10km/s should result in some sort of severe damage if, say, both ships are out of armor and shields. However, flagging people for bumping others or even causing damage is a really bad idea. The undocking example, warp to zero, even just traffic jams where people don't land on each other but are trying to move in opposite directions, or orbiting a station/stargate, there's simply too much that could easily go wrong. Edit: Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2 (one half mass times velocity squared.) The velocity component is squared, so it has a significantly higher effect on the final kinetic energy than the mass does. Kinetic energy is not the measure of how much : damage : you do when colliding. Terminal ballistics research has provved taht is much closer to the impulse (vel*mass). That if both are made of same material or the smaller one is made of strogner matterial. If taht is not the case then mass is much more relevant than speed. Wanna know more just make research about thompson and Krupp formulaes for terminal ballistics. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
papaPadla Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.03.13 11:36:00 - [27] Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot. Ya... except i havent seen many trucks in space... -------------------------------------
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.13 11:36:00 - [28] Originally by: Splagada i could swear i one day read that bumping to prevent another ship from warping was petitionable i must have misread or things had changed, but that's what i always thought no. In fact that is pretty much the only tactis that can be used against certain ships. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Cygore Amarr Death Cult Armageddon	Posted - 2007.03.13 11:45:00 - [29] Edited by: Cygore on 13/03/2007 11:41:42 granted bumping is really annoying, especially when someone in a pod can shove a bs or bigger ship off course :\ but just imagine what would happen in fleet battles when u have 30+ ships all warp at the same time, half the fleet would be lost on warpout lol
Drizit Amarr	Posted - 2007.03.13 11:57:00 - [30] I've always thought the bumping tactic was lame. Why fit Scramblers if you don't actually need them to stop someone warping? Just hit their BS lightly, even with a shuttle and keep them from warping while your buddies systematically turn it into a killmail. When mining with drone defence, the indy comes to collect the can and watch those little guys bounce the indy all over the sky, preventing it from warping off after the can is empty. Where damage is concerned, there has to be some dynamics. A frig is going to blow up if it hits a BS hard enough but it's just enough to scratch the shields of the BS. I hope that it also means that mass will also be a factor and a frig won't be able to gently tap a much larger ship and knock it way out of alignment. This is a lame tactic that negates the need for scramblers in the game. --

Rutoo Gallente Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.03.13 12:25:00 - [31] No, You people make me sick sometimes, Your Ships all have shields... Right? Newton's third law. III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So just pretend that the ship bumping you is really bumping the shields of your ship, not causing any damage at all. We don't need anymore stupid ideas entered into the game that will just cause lag and cause even more people to be killed in empire. Why? i see it now. Battleship Rams Hauler in HighSec at 10km sec, hauler blows up, BS stays alive cause it's not an aggression to bump. blah _________________________________________________________ My Second EvE Video Club Seals Not Sandwichs
Vladimir Ilych Gradient	Posted - 2007.03.13 12:36:00 - [32] Edited by: Vladimir Ilych on 13/03/2007 12:40:58 Would be nice to see a wave of frigs mwd'ing into a BS on suicide ramming mission. :-) You would need to factor in mass and speed of both parties. I imagine in the scenario above the first however many ships (10+ maybe) would splatter on the BS shields before getting to the armour / hull. Don't see it happening though.
Sable Schroedinger Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.03.13 12:54:00 - [33] from a simple game play angle, damage from bumping would just be mad. Exiting gang warps would result in a near instant destruction of the gang. The problem with bumping is purely in the reaction. frig charges BS, BS shoots off into the middle distance, or any combo there in. Quote any law of physics you like, cling to ~0 friction etc etc. it just causes hassle and problems. Not to mention the fact that if it was implemented across the board the game would become unplayable - as has been mentioned, the impact from being shot carries huge amounts of kinetic energy. So if ships can bump you, then being shot should have you bouncing all over space (which would be as funny as hell for about 15 minutes). So, if your stabilisers can handle being shot, bumping should be no problem - well, unless the ship is much larger than you... -------------------------------------------- Join Now
Zaolen Ying Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.03.13 13:18:00 - [34] Why not make a specific command called "Ram" or something. That way it can be flagged as a criminal action, you wont get a mass bloodbath in jita 4-4 and everyones happy ^^ -Z
Jerick Ludhowe Internet Tough Guys Inc.	Posted - 2007.03.13 13:24:00 - [35] Damage from bumping would cause way too much hassle to be a reasonable game mechanic. My only issue with bumping atm is that a tiny little drone will make a battle ship wiggle and dance on a dime, I'd like it if it were a bit more reasonable. Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you****got"
Martin Adeupname	Posted - 2007.03.13 14:04:00 - [36] Originally by: Zaolen Ying Why not make a specific command called "Ram" or something. That way it can be flagged as a criminal action, you wont get a mass bloodbath in jita 4-4 and everyones happy ^^ -Z Make it an actual module - "Ramming Unit" or something, make it take a high slot. Just say that it deactivates the ship's navigation shields, or some such rubbish. Activating it would count as aggro, so in high-sec CONCORD would turn up and kill you. Obviously there'd be some balance issues. You wouldn't want a BS to be able to activate ram mode immediately before hitting a poor hauler in high-sec, before CONCORD had a chance to respond. Maybe some sort of time delay...? And the damage to your ship and the target vessel would need to be carefully balanced, a BS ramming a freighter, destroying both, would be fun, but completely unbalancing!
Benco97 Gallente Multiverse Corporation	Posted - 2007.03.13 14:48:00 - [37] The worst thing about collision damage would be warping. One moment you're flying your massive pimped-out battleship, on your way home for tea when suddenly you smear across the surface of a planet that got in your way. No tea for you. "MY GOD KEEP THIS AWAY FROM BENCO97!!!!!" - Constantine Arcanum
Celeste Coeval	Posted - 2007.03.13 14:59:00 - [38] bump "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." -Albert Einstein
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.13 15:14:00 - [39] Given a day D when CCP implements collision damage. D+5 is the date when Goonswarm will have taken over all regions of eve and destroyed all alliances... If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Erim Solfara Amarr Tarlos INC	Posted - 2007.03.13 15:59:00 - [40] Originally by: Grawshellar Shields.... they can take a slug thats 4.6 ft across, thats moving fast enough to cover a 200km distance nearly instantaneously, and if its not a dead-on hit (crit) you won't completely deplete the energy of the shield. (a single round from a tempest with a 1400mm arty cannon shooting a single shot at a frig) I'd say that the energy imparted from a BS moving a few hundred meters a second would probably be a tickle in comparison.... any physics geeks care to do the math to back me up? Not that a BS moving at 300 m/s wouldn't impart a massive amount of force, its just that it wouldn't be jack compared to the energy from a singly 1400mm artillery round. e=1/2mv^2 Carbonized lead shell, 1kg (from ID), velocity what? According to wikipedia, 1,800 m/s is about the limit with chemical propellants, but that's with air resistance. So call it 3000m/s to be generous? 1/2 x 1 x 3000 x 3000 4,500,000J battleship 107500000 kg (Apoc), 300m/s 1/2 x 107500000 x 300 x 300 4,837,500,000,000J That said, a shell would have to travel at 1,555,233m/s to match the kinetic energy of the battleship travelling at a mere 300m/s. That's over one and a half thousand kilometres a second... New ship class

Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.13 16:11:00 - [41] Originally by: Erim Solfara Originally by: Grawshellar Shields.... they can take a slug thats 4.6 ft across, thats moving fast enough to cover a 200km distance nearly instantaneously, and if its not a dead-on hit (crit) you won't completely deplete the energy of the shield. (a single round from a tempest with a 1400mm arty cannon shooting a single shot at a frig) I'd say that the energy imparted from a BS moving a few hundred meters a second would probably be a tickle in comparison.... any physics geeks care to do the math to back me up? Not that a BS moving at 300 m/s wouldn't impart a massive amount of force, its just that it wouldn't be jack compared to the energy from a singly 1400mm artillery round. e=1/2mv^2 Carbonized lead shell, 1kg (from ID), velocity what? According to wikipedia, 1,800 m/s is about the limit with chemical propellants, but that's with air resistance. So call it 3000m/s to be generous? 1/2 x 1 x 3000 x 3000 4,500,000J battleship 107500000 kg (Apoc), 300m/s 1/2 x 107500000 x 300 x 300 4,837,500,000,000J That said, a shell would have to travel at 1,555,233m/s to match the kinetic energy of the battleship travelling at a mere 300m/s. That's over one and a half thousand kilometres a second... not aroblem at all. You take a WW2 battleship. It shoot a 15 inch shell at an enemy BB. It most likely will not mke any huge damage. Need dozens of shots do do it. Now put 2 WW2 battleships running one into each other at 23 knots each. When they collide.. you may bet your pants that they will be completely ******! If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Oarta	Posted - 2007.03.13 16:16:00 - [42] I like the idea of using your ship itself as a tool. However, I think when a collision occurs a quick check is done and the ship with the higher mass is uneffected and the lower mass ship actually receives the bump effect. Sort of like trying to ram an asteroid. While this isn't the most complex of soulutions it seems rather simple.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2007.03.13 16:23:00 - [43] Bumping is hellalame yes, hopefully this cartoony feature will be replaced with ramming where speed, mass and current hull integrity will determine how much damage the two ships take. There need to be collision damage, without it it's bumpercars and we all know how fun those are after the age of 12. Also Known As
Melindor Bladerunners Mordus Angels	Posted - 2007.03.13 16:42:00 - [44] Edited by: Melindor on 13/03/2007 16:38:37 May I remind you that when 2 objects with the same mass bump eachother, then the one who is slowest takes the most damage and not the other way around. If you want realism, then atleast know what you ask for.
nahtoh Caldari Bull Industries	Posted - 2007.03.13 16:49:00 - [45] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Bumping is hellalame yes, hopefully this cartoony feature will be replaced with ramming where speed, mass and current hull integrity will determine how much damage the two ships take. There need to be collision damage, without it it's bumpercars and we all know how fun those are after the age of 12. And I hope you enjoy when that big ass frighter smashes your pimped out ship when its coming out of warp on your head or a dread or carrier undocks on it...or damm any ship undocks and hits your pod and pops it. Granted there needs to be a way to stop bu,mping out of alignment and knocking you so faraway at stuppid speeds but i do not think that collision damage is the way to go. ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.13 17:20:00 - [46] Bumping/bouncing in the current form is a joke. Dev's whine "local" being abused as a tactical means. Pfffft. I agree it is being abused, but so is bouncing ... It needs to be fixed!
SilentBladez Imperial Knights The Crimson Federation	Posted - 2007.03.13 17:45:00 - [47] Originally by: Melindor Edited by: Melindor on 13/03/2007 16:38:37 May I remind you that when 2 objects with the same mass bump eachother, then the one who is slowest takes the most damage and not the other way around. If you want realism, then atleast know what you ask for. I believe bumping a frig with a battleship should allow the frigate to bounce off and receive minimal damage , the shield could be used like a deflector for small frigates but bumping should have damage involved in any case. I mostly care about the battleship bumping not the light stuff.
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.13 18:27:00 - [48] Edited by: Xipe Totec on 13/03/2007 18:28:54 Originally by: Melindor Edited by: Melindor on 13/03/2007 16:38:37 May I remind you that when 2 objects with the same mass bump eachother, then the one who is slowest takes the most damage and not the other way around. Afaik this is a common misconception. In an "ideal crash"* both sides suffer the same amount of damage irrelevant of their speeds. Of course real world crashes are never "ideal". (*identical objects, hitting each other straight on) ...but we are leaving the topic ^^
James Snowscoran Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.03.13 18:43:00 - [49] Edited by: James Snowscoran on 13/03/2007 18:39:54 Originally by: Danton Marcellus Bumping is hellalame yes, hopefully this cartoony feature will be replaced with ramming where speed, mass and current hull integrity will determine how much damage the two ships take. There need to be collision damage, without it it's bumpercars and we all know how fun those are after the age of 12. Are you seriously trying to say bumpercars isn't fun? Anyway,bumping is a fundamental and very necessary tool in keeping supercapitals from warping so it probably isn't going away for a long while. -----
SilentBladez Imperial Knights The Crimson Federation	Posted - 2007.03.13 20:08:00 - [50] Originally by: James Snowscoran Edited by: James Snowscoran on 13/03/2007 18:39:54 Originally by: Danton Marcellus Bumping is hellalame yes, hopefully this cartoony feature will be replaced with ramming where speed, mass and current hull integrity will determine how much damage the two ships take. There need to be collision damage, without it it's bumpercars and we all know how fun those are after the age of 12. Are you seriously trying to say bumpercars isn't fun? Anyway,bumping is a fundamental and very necessary tool in keeping supercapitals from warping so it probably isn't going away for a long while. Necessary in exploiting peoples option of getting out of the way while being prevented. It's bad enough being webbed and scrambed but bumped 30km off the station or gate, I do believe its a exploit.

Shamis Orzoz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.03.13 20:34:00 - [51] CCP can't even handle missle agility, you think they're going to be able to code up collision damage math??? Shamis
Sonorra Baki Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.03.13 20:49:00 - [52] We had a fun gang going with a 19km/sec phoon. When we encountered enemy gangs, we would take position 250km off the gate. Our phoon would then proceed to bump one of their ships 130km off the gate. And we could warp our buddy and waste it, before the enemy could warp out and back in. 130km in one bump while being invulnerable \o/ This may not be work safe -Capsicum
Nymos Fimbulvintr	Posted - 2007.03.13 20:57:00 - [53] Edited by: Nymos on 13/03/2007 20:55:48 yep it is retarded. but, you know, a more realistic damage model... would pwn the servers even more :). at least that's the standard reply that one gets on the forums for proposing more realism hehe. sry. i think in a year or so eve will be reduced to pong graphics to handle the new pcu record (that noone cares about if the servers crap out). edit: not to mention, the inertia would turn your body into goo and totaly break it apart, but i'm sure technology in eve is sophisticated enough to overcome that :p. in eve you even have sound in space, so c'mon a bit more imagination pls :)) --
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2007.03.13 22:05:00 - [54] Naw, they dont even touch, the shields absorb the impact and of course, the inertial dampeners take care of the rest. Maybe?
Sphynix	Posted - 2007.03.13 22:40:00 - [55] If you wanted bumping to be "realistic" you have to factor in: Inertia (which is basically mass moving at speed). Shield/armour/hull strength. Then factor a reduction/damage calc - so shields do Emp/Therm and hull/armour does Kin/Exp damage? Then factoring the inertia and damage done/absorbed against the relative inertia and damage/absorbed from the impact - you can figure out the final inertia's and damage done. Or more basically; A frig hits a BS in a head-to-head (easier to calc the "bounce" as its a straight reduction, negative numbers mean reverse) figuring in inertia of the BS compared to the Frig and then their shields/armour/hull stressing under the impact - the frig would vapourise and the BS would barely notice any change in direction. Its a bit like an Articulated Lorry hitting a Scooter. Even if you turned off the damage calcs for high sec, low sec would be a lag fest as the server tries to keep up with everyone. If you put a "25km no calculation bubble" around gates/stations then no one would leave that area - most bumping happens at gates or stations and with WTZ.... So this means that you could only bump someone in the middle-of-nowhere, in lowsec/0.0. This happens when you manage to track someone down in a safe spot, they are probably not going to need a bounce :p If you could still bump at gates, all you would see is dedicated bumping ships with huge plates - to mitigate the self damage and increase their mass/inertia. If you remove bumping from the game then you remove clipping? Or does everything just stop dead at impact? Even if you just have the "bounce" calc worked out using inertia physics its a hell of a job to get right, but at least you wouldn't see a drone bouncing a carrier around. (which is a bit like a small boat "bouncing" an aircraft carrier through 10 degrees on impact)
Gamesguy Amarr E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.03.13 23:02:00 - [56] Edited by: Gamesguy on 13/03/2007 23:00:21 Originally by: Erim Solfara e=1/2mv^2 Carbonized lead shell, 1kg (from ID), velocity what? According to wikipedia, 1,800 m/s is about the limit with chemical propellants, but that's with air resistance. So call it 3000m/s to be generous? 1/2 x 1 x 3000 x 3000 4,500,000J Horribly flawed premise. The Schwerer Gustav was an rl 80cm(800mm) artillery piece that fired a shell weighted in at 7 tons, thats 7000kgs. Since mass increases exponentially with radius, doubling the radius will likely result in an 8 fold increase in mass. So the 1400mm probably fires a shell weighting 40000kgs. Velcity is 250km/s, since thats how long it takes a projectile to travel that distance in eve. In addition you got the math and the units wrong as well. So the actual kinetic energy is 40000(250000/2)^2=6.2510^14J, or 156.25 megatons of tnt. Quote: battleship 107500000 kg (Apoc), 300m/s 1/2 x 107500000 x 300 x 300 4,837,500,000,000J That said, a shell would have to travel at 1,555,233m/s to match the kinetic energy of the battleship travelling at a mere 300m/s. That's over one and a half thousand kilometres a second... actual math: 107500000(300/2)^2=2.410^12j, less than 1/200th the energy of the 1400mm shell.
Kazuo Ishiguro	Posted - 2007.03.13 23:25:00 - [57] Originally by: papaPadla Ya... except i havent seen many trucks in space... You clearly aren't watching enough Voyager - have a look at series 2, episode 1 /me hides Seriously, though, the game physics are far too loosely modelled to possibly support anything like this, probably to minimise lag as much as for any other reason. ------ Top speed calculation spreadsheet - feedback welcome :) Army of doom headcount: 26,045
Nerogk Shorn Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2007.03.14 00:00:00 - [58] Originally by: Grawshellar Shields.... they can take a slug thats 4.6 ft across, thats moving fast enough to cover a 200km distance nearly instantaneously, and if its not a dead-on hit (crit) you won't completely deplete the energy of the shield. (a single round from a tempest with a 1400mm arty cannon shooting a single shot at a frig) I'd say that the energy imparted from a BS moving a few hundred meters a second would probably be a tickle in comparison.... any physics geeks care to do the math to back me up? Not that a BS moving at 300 m/s wouldn't impart a massive amount of force, its just that it wouldn't be jack compared to the energy from a singly 1400mm artillery round. When I read this I became very curious. If what you said were true, then if the battleship were to shoot one shell the battleship (assumed to be stationary before the firing of the howitzer) would have an equal momentum imparted on it be propelled at >300 mps in the opposite direction. I decided to do a little math. The EMP L projectile round is .05 m3 in volume. This doesn't entirely make sense because if it was 1400mm in diameter then the round could only be 3.24 cm thick. I am going to assume that the entire shell's diameter (which includes the propellent needed to accelerate this massive warhead) is 1400mm in diameter and the actual projectile shot out of the howitzer is .05 m3. So .05 m3 is 50,000 cubic centimeters, and extremely dense tungsten and uranium is usually about 19 g/cc. This makes each warhead weigh about 950 kilograms. Now to assume the speed of the projectile. I read that 20km/s was the fastest speed reached by a projectile in a railgun combined with chemical explosive propulsion. (This was on Wikipedia so it could be total bull, other MAC weapons could achieve ~6km/s). So since eve is set way into the future I'll estimate the speed to be around 50km/s. I know that projectiles hit almost instantaneously 250km away, but in intrest of reality I will stick with 50km/s. In all reality it is probably much less since the power of a projectile is supposed to be the warhead it carries and not it's momentum (which is what railguns are all about). So 950kg * 50,000 m/s = 47,500,000 kgm/s The mass of a tempest is 102,500,000 kg So 102,500,000kg * 300 m/s = 30,750,000,000 kgm/s A tempest going 300 m/s therefore has 647.4 times the momentum as one of its howitzer shells. That is with all assumptions made. Now something fun. 6 shells * 47,500,000 kgm/s = 285,000,000 kgm/s Assuming the battleship is stationary at the time of the salvo, it should be moving in the opposite direction at a speed of 2.78 m/s. This doesn't seem like a lot, but since the acceleration occurs in such a short ammount of time (the time it takes for the projectile to leave the barrel), the g-force would be extreme. Conclusion: This is a game and it would be silly to incorporate every aspect of physics into it. That is why we make stuff up called inertial dampeners and such. -Bulbasaur Wizard D-F-A-A-B-A-A-S
Grawshellar	Posted - 2007.03.14 00:14:00 - [59] Edited by: Grawshellar on 14/03/2007 00:12:49 Originally by: Erim Solfara e=1/2mv^2 Carbonized lead shell, 1kg (from ID), velocity what? According to wikipedia, 1,800 m/s is about the limit with chemical propellants, but that's with air resistance. So call it 3000m/s to be generous? 1/2 x 1 x 3000 x 3000 4,500,000J Your telling me the lead slugs my 1400 howitzer fires weighs 1 kilo? No, just no. A kilogram of lead into a gun of this size isn't even a hotdog in a hallway sort of situation. Lets take a slug of the apropriate size and weigh it instead. We'll assume a round with a diameter of 1400mm(the bore size of the gun) and 2800mm in length. While artillery rounds are tapered IRL, there is no need in space since there is no drag, so we'll assume a cylinder, as it will give us a basic idea. lead= 11.83 g/cm^3 Volume of a cylinder: pi R^2 H pi = 3.14 R = 70 cm H = 280 cm volume of the projectile : 4308080 cm^3 4308080 * 11.84 = ~51007667 grams = ~51007 km This size is more realistic, since it is a chunk of lead 5 foot across and 10 foot long. And if it was moving only 3km/sec then you could outrun it in a interceptor. Since no ship can outrun a projectile I guess you'd have to assume that at best it travels much faster then the highest possible attainable speed for any ship :P If we said 50,000 m/s then the math would say: .5 x 51007 x 50000 x 50000 = 63758750000000 Which already makes it 10x more damaging :P Of course if the projectile was only moving that fast then they would take a whole 3 seconds to reach their target, whereas in eve they are nearly instantaneous. So to really do the calculation we'd have to agree on how long it takes for a projectile to reach the target, but if it was 1800 m/s then the volley from a tempest would hit something 180km away in what, 100 seconds? **** Of course all of this math really only proves one thing... Eve has no room for real physics :P
Grawshellar	Posted - 2007.03.14 00:19:00 - [60] Edited by: Grawshellar on 14/03/2007 00:15:53 Ignore, this was an quote instead of an edit by mistake.

Nerogk Shorn Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2007.03.14 00:55:00 - [61] Originally by: Rutoo No, You people make me sick sometimes, Your Ships all have shields... Right? Newton's third law. III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So just pretend that the ship bumping you is really bumping the shields of your ship, not causing any damage at all. We don't need anymore stupid ideas entered into the game that will just cause lag and cause even more people to be killed in empire. Why? i see it now. Battleship Rams Hauler in HighSec at 10km sec, hauler blows up, BS stays alive cause it's not an aggression to bump. blah When railgunn and projectile rounds impact your shields they reduce the total hitpoints of your shield. You take damage. So why should you not take damage to your shields and the rest of your ship when another ship impacts your shields? It doesn't matter if both ships have shields, because they are both stopping the momentum of the other ship, and the shields of both will still be damaged. Bulbasaur Wizard D-F-A-A-B-A-A-S
Neon Genesis Gallente The Landed Gentry	Posted - 2007.03.14 01:43:00 - [62] Maximum speed is also a joke, lets make ships just accelerate forever!
Calebes Gallente The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.14 02:02:00 - [63] Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot. Signed. Full newtonian physics in the game when not engaging warp drive. Please? Tyvm.
SilentBladez Imperial Knights The Crimson Federation	Posted - 2007.03.14 02:34:00 - [64] Battleships were never meant to go faster then an interceptor in this case there is a flaw and it should be fixed. This will solve nanophoon/domi/etc and bumpage.
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.03.14 03:33:00 - [65] To everyone saying fleets would suffer...FORMATIONS. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Star Commander Got Corp?
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.14 08:21:00 - [66] Originally by: Neon Genesis Maximum speed is also a joke, lets make ships just accelerate forever! If I may, another misconception (afaik). Propulsion (chemical or ion) as we know it today do not allow for endless acceleration. Depending on various factors there is a maximum velocity, usually way below the speed of light, which in itself is a barrier to endless classical acceleration. But we are straying (again). My problem is not so much with the actual bouncing or the introduction of a bounce-damage model. I would be happy if bouncing would no longer keep you from warping/aligining or from docking only scramblers or bubbles (or similar devices) should be able to do that. And I agree with many of the previous posters that the tactical use of bouncing is bordering on an exploit (unintended gameplay) and should be adressed by whatever means the devs see fit.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.14 10:11:00 - [67] Originally by: Xipe Totec Originally by: Neon Genesis Maximum speed is also a joke, lets make ships just accelerate forever! If I may, another misconception (afaik). Propulsion (chemical or ion) as we know it today do not allow for endless acceleration. Depending on various factors there is a maximum velocity, usually way below the speed of light, which in itself is a barrier to endless classical acceleration. But we are straying (again). My problem is not so much with the actual bouncing or the introduction of a bounce-damage model. I would be happy if bouncing would no longer keep you from warping/aligining or from docking only scramblers or bubbles (or similar devices) should be able to do that. And I agree with many of the previous posters that the tactical use of bouncing is bordering on an exploit (unintended gameplay) and should be adressed by whatever means the devs see fit. without bouncing.. how do you kill a mothership? Or a loged in Titan? What you ask can only be acomplished when there are no imune to EW ships. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.14 10:15:00 - [68] Originally by: Xipe Totec Originally by: Neon Genesis Maximum speed is also a joke, lets make ships just accelerate forever! If I may, another misconception (afaik). Propulsion (chemical or ion) as we know it today do not allow for endless acceleration. Depending on various factors there is a maximum velocity, usually way below the speed of light, which in itself is a barrier to endless classical acceleration. Er, no this is wrong. In an atmosphere there is a limit to the maximum obtainable speed because you increase the force due to drag the faster you go, and it takes proportionally more power to overcome that. In space, you are only limited by fuel. In EVE we have infinite fuel, so we should be able to accelerate forever upto light speed. EVE space instead though, behaves more like a fluid.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2007.03.14 11:05:00 - [69] bump "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." -Albert Einstein Member of the [UTSFAH] corp.
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.14 11:21:00 - [70] [Leaving the topic completely for a second] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation This is how it works in reality ^^ [Returning to the topic]

Erim Solfara Amarr Tarlos INC	Posted - 2007.03.14 17:16:00 - [71] Edited by: Erim Solfara on 14/03/2007 17:13:20 Originally by: Gamesguy Edited by: Gamesguy on 13/03/2007 23:00:21 Originally by: Erim Solfara e=1/2mv^2 Carbonized lead shell, 1kg (from ID), velocity what? According to wikipedia, 1,800 m/s is about the limit with chemical propellants, but that's with air resistance. So call it 3000m/s to be generous? 1/2 x 1 x 3000 x 3000 4,500,000J Horribly flawed premise. The Schwerer Gustav was an rl 80cm(800mm) artillery piece that fired a shell weighted in at 7 tons, thats 7000kgs. Since mass increases exponentially with radius, doubling the radius will likely result in an 8 fold increase in mass. So the 1400mm probably fires a shell weighting 40000kgs. Velcity is 250km/s, since thats how long it takes a projectile to travel that distance in eve. In addition you got the math and the units wrong as well. So the actual kinetic energy is 40000(250000/2)^2=6.2510^14J, or 156.25 megatons of tnt. Quote: battleship 107500000 kg (Apoc), 300m/s 1/2 x 107500000 x 300 x 300 4,837,500,000,000J That said, a shell would have to travel at 1,555,233m/s to match the kinetic energy of the battleship travelling at a mere 300m/s. That's over one and a half thousand kilometres a second... actual math: 107500000(300/2)^2=2.410^12j, less than 1/200th the energy of the 1400mm shell. ...I took the mass value from the official item database. Perhaps it's inaccurate, but it's the official figure from the game, so that's why I used it. New ship class
Harry Paratesteas Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2007.03.14 18:29:00 - [72] If you really want bumping damage. All I would do is sit outside the docking point of a station. Wait for everyone to undock and let them blow each other up. Now do you still want bumping damage? Harry Paratesteas War Correspondent
Rabbitual Ferrier	Posted - 2007.03.14 18:36:00 - [73] An arguement for bouncing off - Its the dual force of two shields that create the effect. Given that these shields are essentially skins on the craft that have a near 0 physical form, and are immobile (ie they do not move so much as remain, or are projected, a set distance from the craft) the effect of two ships bumping is actually an opposite reaction of the shields. So in essence whilst the speed of the ships may be immense, the mass of the fields is infitesimally small (less than a speck of dust), so the effect would be similar to a large gale (ie force without physicality) - ie pushing you away. Of course this means you move, but its like being blown backwards rather than a two trucks colliding (they have high mass and velocity). An arguement about collision and fields... The other option is that fields don't interact, and then the incoming ship (presumably the faster one say) and the two ships then collide on the others shields. However as missiles do not penetrate a shield, we can simply take for read that a small ship simply vapourises on the larger shield (captial ship missiles - very large in size - presumably work by infront of the shield with a directive force - this is because excess damage travels through the shield, rather than around it, or out wards). So the important thing becomes how far your shield is projected from the armour. If the ramming ship hits the targets ship shield, before its shield connects with the targets physical form, the it damages the shield (and then absorbs the energy disapated by the shied of its velocity), but takes damage to its armour/Hull. Theres also the danger of course that the force of impact of the ship who hits the shield first is like an explosion in a confined space (exploding inside your shields could simply create a horrible backwash inside your own shield effect. If were the case that shields did not however perform the current accepted 'bounce effect' but collision damage to the target ship, then missiles would be fitted with shields, so that they by passed the targets shields, and just did armour damage.... In Game Its problematic. Firstly the suicide gank. Cheap MWD, overdrive and bam one insurable high speed missile. And how do you determine aggro when two moving players collide? You can't, so no security loss. Second - If you undock in Rens, you'll be in you pod briefly, before you're podded by someone else undocking. Third - Griefing with mines was bad... However Imagine, a transporter is parked up directly in front of the exit to rens station, shield tank running. Even another transport undocking will experience the worst of the collision.
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.15 08:14:00 - [74] I dont mind if bumping were to remain in game. All that needs to be fixed is the docking/warping/cloaking inhibition that comes with it.
Valan	Posted - 2007.03.15 09:48:00 - [75] I seem to remember a Dev post stating that they originally intended to have collison damage but the lag was horrendous due to the calculations needed. I think thats why the Geddon looks the way it does. Anyway bumping is the only way to stop station huggers in carriers reaping havoc and then tanking until they can dock. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game three years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.15 10:23:00 - [76] This may entirely be the case, however, I dont think that this was intended gameplay ...
Ashaz	Posted - 2007.03.15 10:29:00 - [77] and FINALY the ram on the incursus would have some cool use! ram it in there, get stuck and keep the mwd running to put the target into a spin ^^
Ashaz	Posted - 2007.03.15 10:42:00 - [78] Originally by: Xipe Totec [Leaving the topic completely for a second] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation This is how it works in reality ^^ [Returning to the topic] ugah. that was alot of formulas. could not be arsed to read it all. but as some funnylooking guy once said: Speed is relative. The explosion that accelerates your ship will always happen in a position and velocity relative to your ships reactor, since that's what's initializing it. In space there is no drag. an object that is pushed away will in theory keep that speed forever. so in practice, a rocket engine with unlimited fuel will indeed accelerate forever. Unless perhaps at some extreme velocity, something odd would happen that makes solar wind and stuff create drag. ok ok. get back on topic
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.15 10:54:00 - [79] Originally by: Xipe Totec [Leaving the topic completely for a second] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation This is how it works in reality ^^ [Returning to the topic] Ok, I think you've misunderstood that. That equation deals with diminishing returns from a rocket propelled by ejecting physical mass (essentially what a rocket does) and concerns itself with how much delta-V change you can expect to get for a given interaction of mass-ejected, total mass of rocket (including fuel) and rocket exhaust velocity. It in fact is implicitely dependant on the fact though, that any given spacecraft can accelerate indefinitely if one assumes it can somehow continuously apply force to itself - this is the case in EVE, though obviously back in reality at some point you run out of fuel.
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.15 10:54:00 - [80] Originally by: Xipe Totec [Leaving the topic completely for a second] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation This is how it works in reality ^^ [Returning to the topic] Ok, I think you've misunderstood that. That equation deals with diminishing returns from a rocket propelled by ejecting physical mass (essentially what a rocket does) and concerns itself with how much delta-V change you can expect to get for a given interaction of mass-ejected, total mass of rocket (including fuel) and rocket exhaust velocity. It in fact is implicitely dependant on the fact though, that any given spacecraft can accelerate indefinitely if one assumes it can somehow continuously apply force to itself - this is the case in EVE, though obviously back in reality at some point you run out of fuel.

Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.15 10:57:00 - [81] exactly my point Now back to the topic, hurry
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.15 10:57:00 - [82] exactly my point Now back to the topic, hurry
Rabbitual Ferrier	Posted - 2007.03.15 10:59:00 - [83] Originally by: Nerogk Shorn Originally by: Rutoo No, You people make me sick sometimes, Your Ships all have shields... Right? Newton's third law. III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So just pretend that the ship bumping you is really bumping the shields of your ship, not causing any damage at all. We don't need anymore stupid ideas entered into the game that will just cause lag and cause even more people to be killed in empire. Why? i see it now. Battleship Rams Hauler in HighSec at 10km sec, hauler blows up, BS stays alive cause it's not an aggression to bump. blah When railgunn and projectile rounds impact your shields they reduce the total hitpoints of your shield. You take damage. So why should you not take damage to your shields and the rest of your ship when another ship impacts your shields? It doesn't matter if both ships have shields, because they are both stopping the momentum of the other ship, and the shields of both will still be damaged. Bulbasaur Wizard The difference is that the projectile has no shield, so exists as mass and velocity approch a engery wave. No because its an energy field, it cannot stop mass, but it can effect energy, so the most likely event would be the shield converts the energy of the round (ie its velocity) rather than being impacted, and the resultant conversion destroys the round. The damage is mearly the 'engery flashed off', that the ship must then regenerate from its power source. However certain rounds produce specific types of energy that is designed to further damage the shield (ie thermal, emp, kinetic or explosive). Or something. However two fields connecting would of course create a problem in that theres no mass to convert (well above the minor atomic level) so the two fields simply have the velocity to deal with. So the shields connection would create a equal and opposite reaction that pushed on each field. Alternatively the shields could simply negate effects and pass one another, but then missiles should be fitted with shields, and then players with shield tanks would winge about Nerftastic
Rabbitual Ferrier	Posted - 2007.03.15 10:59:00 - [84] Originally by: Nerogk Shorn Originally by: Rutoo No, You people make me sick sometimes, Your Ships all have shields... Right? Newton's third law. III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So just pretend that the ship bumping you is really bumping the shields of your ship, not causing any damage at all. We don't need anymore stupid ideas entered into the game that will just cause lag and cause even more people to be killed in empire. Why? i see it now. Battleship Rams Hauler in HighSec at 10km sec, hauler blows up, BS stays alive cause it's not an aggression to bump. blah When railgunn and projectile rounds impact your shields they reduce the total hitpoints of your shield. You take damage. So why should you not take damage to your shields and the rest of your ship when another ship impacts your shields? It doesn't matter if both ships have shields, because they are both stopping the momentum of the other ship, and the shields of both will still be damaged. Bulbasaur Wizard The difference is that the projectile has no shield, so exists as mass and velocity approch a engery wave. No because its an energy field, it cannot stop mass, but it can effect energy, so the most likely event would be the shield converts the energy of the round (ie its velocity) rather than being impacted, and the resultant conversion destroys the round. The damage is mearly the 'engery flashed off', that the ship must then regenerate from its power source. However certain rounds produce specific types of energy that is designed to further damage the shield (ie thermal, emp, kinetic or explosive). Or something. However two fields connecting would of course create a problem in that theres no mass to convert (well above the minor atomic level) so the two fields simply have the velocity to deal with. So the shields connection would create a equal and opposite reaction that pushed on each field. Alternatively the shields could simply negate effects and pass one another, but then missiles should be fitted with shields, and then players with shield tanks would winge about Nerftastic
Atreides Horza Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.03.15 11:00:00 - [85] Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot. As opposed to a battleship thousands of metres long hugging a station and disappearing into the warm and safe belly of the station in a split second, which is ofc VERY realistic... I might be wrong in your case, m8, but it seems to me that most people only cry for realism whenever they've been victim of whatever catches them with their pants down...
Atreides Horza Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.03.15 11:00:00 - [86] Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot. As opposed to a battleship thousands of metres long hugging a station and disappearing into the warm and safe belly of the station in a split second, which is ofc VERY realistic... I might be wrong in your case, m8, but it seems to me that most people only cry for realism whenever they've been victim of whatever catches them with their pants down...
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.15 11:10:00 - [87] Edited by: Xipe Totec on 15/03/2007 11:07:38 The question remains however if the massive tactical use of bumping happening these days is intended gameplay or not ... ... similar to the tactical use of "local" debate. Similar to other corrections implemented in the past or debated today.
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.15 11:10:00 - [88] Edited by: Xipe Totec on 15/03/2007 11:07:38 The question remains however if the massive tactical use of bumping happening these days is intended gameplay or not ... ... similar to the tactical use of "local" debate. Similar to other corrections implemented in the past or debated today.
Rabbitual Ferrier	Posted - 2007.03.15 12:00:00 - [89] Originally by: Xipe Totec Edited by: Xipe Totec on 15/03/2007 11:07:38 The question remains however if the massive tactical use of bumping happening these days is intended gameplay or not ... ... similar to the tactical use of "local" debate. Similar to other corrections implemented in the past or debated today. I think it is acceptable, if a bit dishonourable (even slight deviation would require extensive recalculation of the warp)
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.15 12:17:00 - [90] Something that should not really take up any discernable calculation time with the advanced computing power of the distant eve-future ... ... I still think it is unintended gameplay.

Duckeye	Posted - 2007.03.15 12:19:00 - [91] What if you kept the effects of bumping the same but added limitations. Just make mass the primary factor that determines who moves when one ship bumps into another. It's a serious hassle to try to warp out of a busy dock in a freighter because all the stupid frigates get in the way, I'd rather just plow through them all and push them out of my way because I'm bigger lol. No damage, just a little nudge... As for it's application to jacking up a ships warp process, if ccp could add a little bit of coding they could make it so that the only way to move a bigger ship off it's warp course is to ram/push against it with many smaller ships that equals greater mass as a collective than the target ship...this way, with the current state of ship masses, 10 battleships pushing against a dreadnought at the same time will keep it from lining up to warp off. It may not be perfect but it's not as complicated as ramming damage and something like this is the only way I can see that will make both sides happy...of course with a bit of tweaking. With the nano's getting nerfed and the bigger ships becoming slower, as they should be, I think it's something that should be looked into.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.03.15 12:20:00 - [92] Originally by: Gamesguy Edited by: Gamesguy on 13/03/2007 23:00:21 Originally by: Erim Solfara e=1/2mv^2 Carbonized lead shell, 1kg (from ID), velocity what? According to wikipedia, 1,800 m/s is about the limit with chemical propellants, but that's with air resistance. So call it 3000m/s to be generous? 1/2 x 1 x 3000 x 3000 4,500,000J Horribly flawed premise. The Schwerer Gustav was an rl 80cm(800mm) artillery piece that fired a shell weighted in at 7 tons, thats 7000kgs. Since mass increases exponentially with radius, doubling the radius will likely result in an 8 fold increase in mass. So the 1400mm probably fires a shell weighting 40000kgs. Velcity is 250km/s, since thats how long it takes a projectile to travel that distance in eve. In addition you got the math and the units wrong as well. So the actual kinetic energy is 40000(250000/2)^2=6.2510^14J, or 156.25 megatons of tnt. Quote: battleship 107500000 kg (Apoc), 300m/s 1/2 x 107500000 x 300 x 300 4,837,500,000,000J That said, a shell would have to travel at 1,555,233m/s to match the kinetic energy of the battleship travelling at a mere 300m/s. That's over one and a half thousand kilometres a second... actual math: 107500000(300/2)^2=2.410^12j, less than 1/200th the energy of the 1400mm shell. You should be considering the momentum not the kinetic energy of the two. Oh and you insist on using a 'more realistic' value for the mass of the shell and then go on to use an absurd mass for the ship (hint 2-3 orders of magnitude too small)... If you use 40k Kg for the shell gives a momentum of 1xE10 kgms^-1. If you use a realistic mass for the Battleship (20M metric tonnes), at 300 m/sec gives momentum 600x that... One more thing to consider, sure shields in Eve will be the point of contact in any collision, but ask yourself, what are they coupled to?... the nuts and bolts holding the generators to the hullà. If they were to ever model collision damage in Eve, it would make more sense for it to be applied directly to the hull. ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.15 15:50:00 - [93] Good point. Any force applied to the shield will at some point or level of force apply shearing forces to the device thats projecting the shield.
Qolde Minmatar Rising Knights SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.15 16:26:00 - [94] I like the idea but i would implement it like this: the physics of bumping would stay as they are now, except drones wouldnt be able to bump battleships or whatever. damage would only occur if an AB or MWD were fitted. Takes care of flagging, and the inevitable jita 4-4 traffic jam.
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.15 17:28:00 - [95] Originally by: Qolde damage would only occur if an AB or MWD were fitted. Not necessarily when fitted, but when active ...
Podometer	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:20:00 - [96] <bump>
Verizana The Kru	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:25:00 - [97] Originally by: Esurnir Heard that bumping will one day cause damage to ships (-someone- saw a video of a frig ramming a bc). But that's a silly rumor I heard, if -anybody- could confirm ?! that was Evolution CG Graphic movie, nothing that will happen anytime in eve.
Jon Hawkes The Littlest Hobos	Posted - 2007.03.16 14:14:00 - [98] How else are we supposed to stop Titans warping..?
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2007.03.16 14:27:00 - [99] bump "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." -Albert Einstein Member of the [UTSFAH] corp.
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.16 15:07:00 - [100] Originally by: Jon Hawkes How else are we supposed to stop Titans warping..? Maybe you weren't supposed to be able to in the frist place. Hence my wondering about unintended gameplay ...

Sever Aldaria Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.03.16 15:10:00 - [101] Edited by: Sever Aldaria on 16/03/2007 15:06:37 I heard that way back when eve was young, they did have collision damage. They removed it because it was such a nightmare. People would jump through a gate and get concordokened on the other side because they bumped the gate causing damage to it while jumping. Same thing with some stations. But, if you want to have collision damage while not making it a concordokenable action then it can be easily abused. For reality's sake, it might be nice. Practically though, it would be horrible. [green]Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further d
Usagi Toshiro	Posted - 2007.03.16 20:54:00 - [102] Maybe include "Dampening" rigs that allow ships to resist bumps? Not sure how they'd work, but the effect when used would be little to no movement off course when "bumped" by another vessel.
Plutoinum German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.03.16 21:10:00 - [103] Edited by: Plutoinum on 16/03/2007 21:08:42 Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot. Bumping wth phoon is good ! Yesterday I caught a ratter raven (guess a farmer corp, tbh). He had two stabs. I had only one scrambler point. First he escaped me several times, but he didn't go to save. He even tried to travel home. He said something like 'Come and get me !'. He felt safe. Then in his home system before he could warp to station I had found the right bumping rythm and bumped him and hindered him from warping, until he was dead. His last words were 'Help me !' Haha. \o/ Did I mention I enjoyed it ? ___________ Muuuhhh !!!
Cloora APEX Unlimited	Posted - 2007.03.16 21:14:00 - [104] They should at a minumum make bumping take mass more into account. Frieghters SHOULD plow over or push through any other ships that sitting in the dock zone. If and Inty slams into a BS with full Overdrive MWD on have him fly 10km away on the bump. The BS might nudge a bit. Bumping should not prevent a warp. Yes, even a Mom or Titan. ======================================== Production Assistant of APEX Unlimited I don't want to be forced to Jet Can mine or buy a hauler alt to mine effectivly. BIGGER CARGO HOLDS IN BARGES NOW!
Xipe Totec	Posted - 2007.03.17 08:02:00 - [105] Originally by: Plutoinum He had two stabs. I had only one scrambler point.First he escaped me several times, but he didn't go to save. He even tried to travel home. Then in his home system before he could warp to station I had found the right bumping rythm and bumped him and hindered him from warping, until he was dead. Thanks for proving my point, "Bumping" is IMHO unintended gameplay ...
Drizit Amarr	Posted - 2007.03.17 17:35:00 - [106] Originally by: Jon Hawkes How else are we supposed to stop Titans warping..? I suggest you read back a few posts. Someone already mentioned an idea that several smaller ships BS or Dreads would be able to use combined mass to do the job. A solo speck of dust shouldn't be able to bump a Titan to stop it warping while they wait for the rest of the fleet to turn up. I believe players who have been playing longer keep harping on about teamwork when someone mentions solo play. Or is this not applicable now that it affects them instead? --
Eric Secundus Caldari Deux Ex Machina	Posted - 2007.03.17 19:10:00 - [107] Originally by: Xipe Totec Originally by: Jon Hawkes How else are we supposed to stop Titans warping..? Maybe you weren't supposed to be able to in the frist place. Hence my wondering about unintended gameplay ... Exactly. It amazes me how this isnt seen by more people.. If no WARP SCRAMBLERS work on the biggest capital ships, maybe its because OTHER SHIPS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO STOP THEM FROM WARPING. The bump-to-stop-from-warping is going the same way as warp-to-0km bookmarks when it started in the older days of EVE. It was an unintended use that the developers did not think of, and did not approve of. Unfortunately the problem became so widespread it became a standard instead of an exploit until CCP finally removed it. I hope they find a way to remove bumping that doesnt end in them just allowing it because they cant find a good solution to stopping it. ------ Scientists claim that hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe. They are wrong. Stupidity is the most abundant substance in the universe
Phelan Lore Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.03.17 19:12:00 - [108] Make all stations eject you out of dock range then. -
monkeyduck Mithril Inc Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.03.17 19:37:00 - [109] Making mass count for warp/movement would be an awesome improvement. Damage caused by collision not so much. When I come out of a station in a freighter, everything should move out of my way. My shields should repel everyone else - bounce frigs further than higher massed ships. For PvP - taking mass into account could really add to gameplay, I think. You want that ship 100 times your size tipped from warp align? Get your gang to all slam into him at once. Seems most logical. Maybe add a gang command feature: Ram target.
Cygnus Zhada Amarr Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.03.17 19:46:00 - [110] Compared to the whole mathematical projectile vomit faster-than-light travel as used in warping should induce I find the "bumping should cause damage" debate rather unimportant. Yes, I use lasers, please stop laughing in the back.

Cenmocay76	Posted - 2007.06.08 07:01:00 - [111] /signed u can stop a carrier with a frigate,its so dumb
Callthetruth Caldari Logical Logtistics	Posted - 2007.06.08 07:02:00 - [112] bumped
Rhaegor Stormborn Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.08 07:03:00 - [113] You can stop a carrier with a sentry drone. Something is wrong. /signed RISE Recruitment Thread
Grath Telkin Amarr Bottomfeeders Inc	Posted - 2007.06.08 07:16:00 - [114] Originally by: Zatch Edited by: Zatch on 13/03/2007 05:18:31 The issue here isn't realism, bumping something at 10km/s should result in some sort of severe damage if, say, both ships are out of armor and shields. However, flagging people for bumping others or even causing damage is a really bad idea. The undocking example, warp to zero, even just traffic jams where people don't land on each other but are trying to move in opposite directions, or orbiting a station/stargate, there's simply too much that could easily go wrong. Edit: Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2 (one half mass times velocity squared.) The velocity component is squared, so it has a significantly higher effect on the final kinetic energy than the mass does. Holy crap man, im hear to play a game, your physics just gave me a headache n made me remember i got work tomorrow damnit
Ladyah Liandri VMF-214 Blacksheep	Posted - 2007.06.08 07:52:00 - [115] Originally by: Xtro 2 bumping is only a joke when you see something small and fast bump something much larger, if its the other way round or same size ships then leave it as is. A joke? It's called physics IIRC. I'll help you with that: - take a basketball and tennisball - put the basketball on the ground - now take the tennisball and let it drop onto the basketball. The tennisball will bump off the basketball which in turn wouldn't move much - now take the tennisball again and step back like 3 meters - throw the tennisball at the basketball as hard as you can. See? In case the basketball didn't move it's because either you threw like a girl or it was a glitch in the Matrix.
Damares Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold	Posted - 2007.06.08 09:17:00 - [116] Edited by: Damares on 08/06/2007 09:19:37 Edited by: Damares on 08/06/2007 09:18:05 mass is much more relevant than speed, i once worked out, for the hell of it how fast a fly would have to be travelling to stop a train, (head on collision) all hypothetical ofcourse, and it came to something like 5.1x10^29, at that speed god knows what would have happend, this being a fly made out of indestructable skin ofc hehe train too, that was just to show how much energy would be needed to cancel each other out, hypothetical, it wouldnt work really, but still just to prove a point. also, above poster, a more eve like comparison would be a bowling ball and a small stone, i bet you if you threw a stone at a bowling ball it wouldnt move very much/at all
Barthezz Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.08 09:35:00 - [117] Holy necro batman!
Caffeine Junkie Caldari Elite Storm Enterprises Storm Armada	Posted - 2007.06.08 09:46:00 - [118] Damage is not absolutely necessary, what should happen however is when two ships bump, the outcome is reflective of the mass and inertia of the ship. I.e. A battleship can plow through a destroyer and just watch the destroyer bounce off. ___________________

Valorem Amarr Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2007.06.08 09:52:00 - [119] Thread Necro is very bad. Valorem forum rules \| CAOD Rules \| [email protected] \| Our Website



Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.