Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zenboca
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 07:14:39 -
[1] - Quote
The most annoying thing in EVE Online's submarine simulation is that we are not in space. How do I know that?
Because when I use afterburner and I turn it off my ship starts to deaccelerate. That is not possible space where are no friction caused by the middle.
I am not asking for totally realistic physics, because then we would not have warp or jump gates. What I am asking is kind of 'locally realistic physics'.
Just a small change would make a great change. That would be that you would have to use your cap in order to stop your ship, like in real life space ship has to do. It would not be bad for the game.
Imagine a situation that you are flying an interceptor. You have to tackle a mindless ratting raven in a asteroid belt. You pulse your MWD, you gain speed. You attain that speed. You close MWD, but you keep your speed. Then you get close to that raven. Then you have to use reverse thrusters to slow down to get into orbit. In my vision you would have to control the MWD by yourself, but in each ship would have automated thrusters for orbit. Now the interesting part is that the orbit done by the automated thrusters should also use some cap. So you could actually run out of cap and then you would lose the orbit and just keep going straight.
Actually, in real world, with these ships, an interceptor might actually have "natural" orbit around a titan since titan is so massive. But gaming wise that would be too much. I think that the server and clients could not handle the calculations for that kind of simulation, yet.
But just a smallish change in 'local physics' would give this game much more immersion and feeling of realism.
Also the cap generator or what ever fusion reactor there is, should get some changes. It has been the same way since 2003. Perhaps some fuel blocks for it too? More complexity please
And yes, I have decided to stay and play EVE |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1108
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 07:16:18 -
[2] - Quote
Something, something warp drives affect acceleration and deceleration, even at sub warp speeds.
There's lore on it somewhere or something.
Possibly something different, just my recollection.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Wachutu
Perkone Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 07:39:55 -
[3] - Quote
only missles mechanics need change... |
Another Posting Alt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
175
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 10:49:43 -
[4] - Quote
Wachutu wrote:only missles mechanics need change...
What about collision physics too. Bumping is pretty silly at the moment. The amount of times I've been stuck in something invisible is ridiculous. |
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries Band of Boogers
261
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 10:53:40 -
[5] - Quote
I asked for similar things many years ago..... real physics like guns dont have falloff, removal of the unnatural deaccelration, line of travel alered by passsing heavy object like planets, moons, suns ect, and slingshot navigation....
But the forum-tijuana-express was high and ******** as always and argued that "NOOOO! Its EVE, it cant be change cuz it will f... up how we play.
So even ask here for real physics, might backfire in ways only very very happy happy men can imagening. |
u3pog
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
764
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 11:02:43 -
[6] - Quote
Regarding the bumping: we already have kinetic energy (damage), mass, velocity, shield/armor/hull, so we have all the ingredients for a real-life crashing simulation. My guess is CCP did not implement this because it would affect the game play negatively.
Some other features may be limited by the programming code. For example we have drag in EVE as if we are flying in a liquid, no gravity, no heat (you could fly into a star without a problem), artillery reaches targets at over 200 kms instantly, you can fly through celestial objects etc. All of those are simply not the focus of the game and may require too much effort to implement, when there is so much other things they are working on...
I for one can't wait to see player built star gates and how will they affect the game. |
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
17464
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 11:03:07 -
[7] - Quote
Zenboca wrote:Also the cap generator or what ever fusion reactor there is, should get some changes. It has been the same way since 2003. Perhaps some fuel blocks for it too? More complexity please If they will do it, then I hope you will forget to fuel your spaceship and will stuck 3 km from Jita undock. And everyone will laugh at you.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him.
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1703
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 11:07:32 -
[8] - Quote
Yes lets add a sh*tton of complexity with no actual gains, just making the game a bigger hassle to play. Great idea.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
2516
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 11:14:04 -
[9] - Quote
Zenboca wrote:... Because when I use afterburner and I turn it off my ship starts to deaccelerate. That is not possible space where are no friction caused by the middle.... The lore reason for this behaviour in space is that the Warp-drive, build into every Capsuleer flyable ship, acts as a drag anchor in space when it is not engaged. Hence the loss of momentum when normal forward thrust is reduced or disengaged. Probably the RL reason is that it could severely enhance the difficulty level of flying in space and as such negatively affect gameplay.
Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format.
Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18239
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 11:25:34 -
[10] - Quote
Space is a liquid. |
|
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1266
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 16:42:15 -
[11] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Yes lets add a sh*tton of complexity with no actual gains, just making the game a bigger hassle to play. Great idea.
This is really what it boils down to. Realistic physics in Eve would make the game less enjoyable for most of the player base. Combat would basically become drivebys where you hope you kill your opponent on the first shot, because it's going to take an hour to turn around and reapproach. Flight modeling would become a chore, not to mention the serious overload all the new calculations would put on the sever.
That's the kind of physics engine you build into a single player simulator, not a game intended for thousands of people to play at once. At some point, playability has to trump modelling the real world. There are some changes I would like to see, like object occlusion (making asteroids and stations and other ships something you can actually hide behind), but even that has issues, considering that the only ammunition that is actually treated as a physical object are missiles and their kin.
What you're asking for really won't improve the game in any meaningful way, and it will make it less enjoyable in a number of them.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
485
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 17:00:28 -
[12] - Quote
I agree with everything you say, except, this is a game, too much realism can be annoying, I love the fact I can warp right through a moon or station, planets, etc, yes I love it. |
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries Band of Boogers
261
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 18:15:48 -
[13] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:I agree with everything you say, except, this is a game, too much realism can be annoying, I love the fact I can warp right through a moon or station, planets, etc, yes I love it.
tbh... one of the first Things that i disliked in EVE was InFact that i couldnt crash and die when i flew thru a planet, moon or the sun.... and i tried hard to find ways to commit suicide without using gankers or selfdestruct.
When it comes to hispeed and ramming Object in EVE, CCP threats players like americans threats their children... putting helmets on every kid and refuse them to be active....
So u all will become fat and lazy EVE players... "will become" might in most case is an obsolete phrase here |
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
486
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 18:26:56 -
[14] - Quote
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:Piugattuk wrote:I agree with everything you say, except, this is a game, too much realism can be annoying, I love the fact I can warp right through a moon or station, planets, etc, yes I love it. tbh... one of the first Things that i disliked in EVE was InFact that i couldnt crash and die when i flew thru a planet, moon or the sun.... and i tried hard to find ways to commit suicide without using gankers or selfdestruct. When it comes to hispeed and ramming Object in EVE, CCP threats players like americans threats their children... putting helmets on every kid and refuse them to be active.... So u all will become fat and lazy EVE players... "will become" might in most case is an obsolete phrase here
But then (sarcasm), miner bumping wouldn't be fun |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
832
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 18:31:21 -
[15] - Quote
Submarines are great. Can't see the benefit in completely changing movement, especially when manual piloting through doubleclicking is hard enough as it is. |
Arcelian
Metentis
200
|
Posted - 2016.10.02 20:25:39 -
[16] - Quote
The space puddin is here to stay. |
Vortexo VonBrenner
Raumfahrer Spiff Rakett Piloot Anslutning
2487
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 00:36:55 -
[17] - Quote
Why has nobody thought of this before?!!!
EvE security zones in pictures
EvE quick reference pdf
A wise man sums up EvE
Smoke me a Kipper...
|
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
129
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 01:09:39 -
[18] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Space is a liquid. Yeah No. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3619
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 03:04:51 -
[19] - Quote
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:tbh... one of the first Things that i disliked in EVE was InFact that i couldnt crash and die when i flew thru a planet, moon or the sun.... and i tried hard to find ways to commit suicide without using gankers or selfdestruct. When it comes to hispeed and ramming Object in EVE, CCP threats players like americans threats their children... putting helmets on every kid and refuse them to be active.... So u all will become fat and lazy EVE players... "will become" might in most case is an obsolete phrase here Because ganking with ramming would be too abusive. Mechanically telling who was at fault in a ramming incident is well..... pretty much impossible. Meaning either we have a situation where the gankers use ramming machs to gank everything. Or they put newbie ships in front of you and you get concorded for ramming them.
I.E. Game play. It's not about 'keeping people safe'. It's about having consistent non abusable game mechanics. |
Neph
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
539
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 03:37:31 -
[20] - Quote
double post please ignore
~ Gariushi YC110 // Midular YC115 // Yanala YC115 ~
"Orte Jaitovalte sitasuyti ne obuetsa useuut ishu. Ketsiak ishiulyn."
-Yakiya Tovil-Toba-taisoka
|
|
Neph
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
539
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 03:38:52 -
[21] - Quote
Can I just point out that there's a lore explanation for the pudding mechanics?
The edge of the depleted-vacumn warp bubble has a natural drag associated with it, which is why we don't go time-traveling whenever we warp FTL, and is the reason there's a max warp speed on ships. The warp core itself has a drag against spacetime even when not in warp (relative to the strongest gravitational field, typically the nearest celestial--anchoring mechanics use a modified warp core). Because of this, ships have a max speed. It's important to note that the thrusters on the back of our ships aren't even thrusters--CCP Falcon confirmed this on the tweetfleet slack. It's unclear for now what they are, but it's not rocket engines pushing us forward.
Honestly, the lore is pretty developed. The most inexplicable part of Eve's mechanics is bumping. That's honestly just a technical and gameplay limitation--I can think of so many situations where collision detection and damage would **** everything up royally, both with lag and with horrible friendly-friendly collision situations.
~ Gariushi YC110 // Midular YC115 // Yanala YC115 ~
"Orte Jaitovalte sitasuyti ne obuetsa useuut ishu. Ketsiak ishiulyn."
-Yakiya Tovil-Toba-taisoka
|
Zenboca
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 04:42:38 -
[22] - Quote
My bad, I wrote MWD and I meant to wrote AB. Isn't MWD taking advantage of this weird warp thing?
Yes also the weapons.. There are no middle, so round fired from a weapon should have a 'unlimited range'. |
Valkin Mordirc
2551
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 04:50:34 -
[23] - Quote
Zenboca wrote:My bad, I wrote MWD and I meant to wrote AB. Isn't MWD taking advantage of this weird warp thing?
Yes also the weapons.. There are no middle, so round fired from a weapon should have a 'unlimited range'.
Ulimited range on blasters? Sure. Rooks And Kings even have a video talking about how broken and OP that was when it was thing.
Also making a game around physics and following laws normally leads to **** gameplay. Even games like Arma bend the rules a bit in order to make an entertaining game.
It's fine as it is.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
17481
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 05:12:35 -
[24] - Quote
Even KSP bends rules.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him.
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Neph
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
541
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 06:09:45 -
[25] - Quote
Zenboca wrote:My bad, I wrote MWD and I meant to wrote AB. Isn't MWD taking advantage of this weird warp thing?
Yes also the weapons.. There are no middle, so round fired from a weapon should have a 'unlimited range'.
Well... let's take a look. Blasters are a cloud of ionized material. Just because of the charge on it, that cloud disperses fairly rapidly. Rails still have the containing vessel, but without a sustained magnetic field to contain the reactive core, it will eventually eat away at the vessel and basically become a blaster cloud. So hybrid weapons have decay.
Missiles eventually run out of fuel. See the launcher rigs. So yeah, they should go on forever, however, it's easy to imagine that, because of regulation, the warhead is dearmed once the fuel cache empties. I think that's fairly accurate to what we see in game. Also, Fury warheads seem to indicate that there may be warhead containment problems on some of them.
Lasers are easy--they have to deal with the good old square-inverse law. Unless your laser chamber is infinitely long and thin, you're going to have to deal with the fact that your beam widens and your intensity drops.
Projectiles really should fly forever. However, 280s are rocket powered, and Barrage has onboard guidance (as do, presumably, all projectiles, hence the long falloff compared to unguided railgun projectiles), so they're not totally dumb--maybe they try to slow themselves down after missing their target? Again, regulation. I'm honestly not sure.
The biggest thing to realize is that the optimal/falloff ranges aren't actual ranges for anything except missiles and blasters. Really what that means is that the ship's tracking computers can't get the projectile/laser to reliably hit the target at that range. In harder scifi, that's because ships are drunkwalking, that is, dancing around randomly to try to dodge projectiles and throw their enemies' targeting computer off, and at ranges where the speed of light+projectiles becomes an issue, there's an information lag that protects the drunkwalking ship. It seems like Eve simulates this without the ranges or the actual motion making sense. If ships fought at lightsecond range and we did drunkwalk, it'd make sense. As is it, ships should be able to perfect track anything on grid. So idk.
~ Gariushi YC110 // Midular YC115 // Yanala YC115 ~
"Orte Jaitovalte sitasuyti ne obuetsa useuut ishu. Ketsiak ishiulyn."
-Yakiya Tovil-Toba-taisoka
|
Toobo
Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium
248
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 09:06:37 -
[26] - Quote
Nice idea, but you need to think about this in terms of game play, not just making something complex or introducing physics for the sake of it.
Your original explanation of how making pilots to actively decelerate the ship and making it require use of cap sounds interesting and more active things to manage, but have you considered the following scenario?
Let's say you are flying a Curse, and you are trying to catch something faster than you. Usually when you neut out a ship that's running MWD or AB or whatever, then the ship will slow down as it has no more cap to use prop mod. But if we implemented the changes you've suggested, if you neut a ship already on high speed then it would just keep on flying away from you at that high speed and you would lose the point on it or whatever.
So basically, when you think about it from speedy ship's point of view, it sounds like an interesting idea. But on the flip side, this would make neuting 'undesirable' in certain scenarios such as one I have given above. You could say that would also bring interesting change, yeah sure, but what I'm saying is that a small change that one may think would make the game play 'neat' actually leads to pretty big game balance and combat mechanics change, that's way more complex and have far reaching consequences that you probably did not think about.
So I'm not arguing against your idea per se, but this will be a huge change and it needs to be taken into consideration together with all sorts of other combat scenarios.
Toobo is a lucky talisman - use Toobo's referral for IWI and you too can be lucky!
|
Valkin Mordirc
2553
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 09:12:32 -
[27] - Quote
Oh yeah I didn't even consider that.
The speed meta would be unreal.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Nana Skalski
Poseidaon
17483
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 09:40:07 -
[28] - Quote
If it would be real, then everyone would get stranded not knowing when and where.
How could you predict next encounter and fueling station on the way?
Did anyone thought about deacceleration and how much fuel it would consume?
So when you would deaccelerate and use all your fuel to stop ship just out of the range of dock, what you could do is pray that someoene will share with you, because bumping would be prohibited by real crashing mechanism (reality).
Everyone else who likes more realism plays KSP already.
Every part of a game helps to tell a story. =ƒôò
Where is Angry CONCORD guy when you need him.
GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
|
Memphis Baas
2074
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 10:30:14 -
[29] - Quote
Acceleration-based physics (where your engines provide acceleration, and turning off the engines means you coast) would be realistic but would cause gameplay issues:
1. Why decelerate? Best attack is a fly-by where you start far away, build up a lot of speed, and hit them with kinetic-amplified damage. You spend about 1 second being in range of any of their weapons, then your great speed simply carries you away. No way to stop you, no neutralizing, webifying not enough, etc.
2. He who accelerates first is uncatchable. Calculate the distance between two rockets that constantly accelerate, with one starting 1 second before the other, for every second that passes.
3. Fleet maneuvers would be impossible, with all the idiots in your own fleet not being synchronized with their engine activations.
The game isn't realistic because it's supposed to be a game.
- speeds are slow and weapons are short range so you can "maneuver" within sight of the other ship, so you can look at ships rather than radar dots
- drag in space means you can catch the other guy by disabling his engines (or neutralizing)
|
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries Band of Boogers
261
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 11:06:01 -
[30] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Goatman NotMyFault wrote:tbh... one of the first Things that i disliked in EVE was InFact that i couldnt crash and die when i flew thru a planet, moon or the sun.... and i tried hard to find ways to commit suicide without using gankers or selfdestruct. When it comes to hispeed and ramming Object in EVE, CCP threats players like americans threats their children... putting helmets on every kid and refuse them to be active.... So u all will become fat and lazy EVE players... "will become" might in most case is an obsolete phrase here Because ganking with ramming would be too abusive. Mechanically telling who was at fault in a ramming incident is well..... pretty much impossible. Meaning either we have a situation where the gankers use ramming machs to gank everything. Or they put newbie ships in front of you and you get concorded for ramming them. I.E. Game play. It's not about 'keeping people safe'. It's about having consistent non abusable game mechanics.
If only ganking by ramming was possible....
When it comes to ganking in general, CCP way of punishing it, is wrong. (But thats clearly a different discussion) |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |