Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
14800
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 12:44:11 -
[31] - Quote
Everytime I see this topic I think the same thing. And that is "here is a poster that doesn't understand why things exist the way they do". And I think people like make the mistake of thinking that what does exist only exists because of developer preference. ie They think "who, the EVE devs must really like submarines, why won't they give me a space game!".
The reality is that things are the way they are because realistic anything would SUCK. Being in an interceptor, going in for a tackle, missiing and taking three days to flip around, decelerate and get back to the target would suck.. never being able to get within a million miles of a ship that is constantly accelerating and doesn't want to be caught would suck.
The cries for more realism aren't unique to EVE, back when I played the previous Mechwarrior games, people would say "it's not realistic for Flamers and machine guns to melt/pierce armor that can withstand PPC, Missile and Laser hits!!!!". It would never cross their minds that they were playing a game about 10-12 meter tall walking robotic tanks that wouldn't last more than 10 seconds on any battlefield with Directed Energy Weapons.
I also saw it during X-Wing vs Tie Fighter. There was actually a small vocal "Newtonian physics" fringe in that community that would not let go of the need for realisim...in a game about fighter craft from the STAR WARS universe, you know, that universe where magical bacteria can make you REALLY flippin good at using swords made out of nothing but light.
It's going to happen in newer games too, it always happens, the realism crowd is looking for something that they never seem to find. Personally,, when i want realism, I walk outside, when i play a game I leave realism at the door. |
Yarosara Ruil
635
|
Posted - 2016.10.03 14:01:59 -
[32] - Quote
The fact our ships still float effortlessly inside gravitational fields like station interiors or on the surface of stars without budging should be an indicator that there is a force more powerful than inertia keeping them stationary.
And that's the Warp Drive folding the space around the ship 24/7. |
Trevize Demerzel
16
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 17:44:12 -
[33] - Quote
Some realistic physics around bumping would be nice :-)
Like when that small cruiser bumps into a carrier/freighter/dread/etc that cruiser should go splat like a bug on a windshield and be utterly destroyed, while the carrier/etc simply asks, "did you hear something? naw was nothing" and doesn't move at all. For that matter if missiles bounce off your shields so should a frigate!
-
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26946
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 19:21:53 -
[34] - Quote
Trevize Demerzel wrote:Some realistic physics around bumping would be nice :-)
Like when that small cruiser bumps into a carrier/freighter/dread/etc that cruiser should go splat like a bug on a windshield and be utterly destroyed, while the carrier/etc simply asks, "did you hear something? naw was nothing" and doesn't move at all. For that matter if missiles bounce off your shields so should a frigate!
Size doesn't really matter, velocity and mass do (https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/collision-lab/collision-lab_en.html)
The normal choice for bumping a freighter is a Machariel, the bare hull has a mass of 94,680,000 kg (94,980 metric tonnes) which is around 10% less than that of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. A 500mn microwarpdrive adds another 50,000,000 kg to the mass (50,000 metric tonnes) giving us a total of 144,680 metric tonnes and an overall velocity of circa 1500m/s (mach 4.3ish); for reference an SR-71 can hit around mach 3.3.
Do you seriously think that a freighter would be able to shrug off something that has a ballpark mass that exceeds that of an aircraft carrier and is travelling at mach 4+ without taking a stupendous amount of damage or even disintegrating?
Be careful what you wish for when it comes to more realistic collision physics.
Civilised behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
New Player FAQ
Feyd's Survival Pack
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
835
|
Posted - 2016.10.04 22:47:53 -
[35] - Quote
What I think is that the above scenario would make one helluva crash. |
Drekavac Rancilio
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 05:15:33 -
[36] - Quote
Warping through space at any direction, not just to some object, would be realistic. Although, PvP-ers would not like that. You could make a bookmark out of a system, or potentially cross systems without using gates. |
Silmas Feanarius
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
37
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 08:15:45 -
[37] - Quote
I for one would love just a couple of (mostly cosmetic) changes, with one gameplay change:
- Effects similar to warping through a planet when warping through moons, stations, (much) bigger ships. At the moment they might as well be painted on for how insubstantial they are. Even getting out of the wat in some fashion would be nice and immersive.
- Shield effects when bumping.
- Bumping should reduce shields (they are in fact absorbing a collision) of both ships, proportional to their masses, and damage / severely damage both ships if both have no shields. The rationale is that if even one has shields, it is pushing the other ships away without touching it directly. If neither of them have shields, however, they are crashing into each other. Damage should be proportional to the respective masses.
Need more well-formatted linking.
Swearing in Sardinian.
|
Memphis Baas
2079
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 11:52:01 -
[38] - Quote
Yeah, your last request is not cosmetic, and would change bumping significantly.
It's pretty easy to change bumping; CCP can change the popular bumping ships (Machariel), they can change the mass / momentum calculations to have different results for impacts, etc. They have a whole range of possibilities, from minor tweaks to completely disabling bumping.
So the fact that they've left it unchanged despite numerous requests from the high-sec PVE crowd should tell you something. |
Silmas Feanarius
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
37
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 13:29:58 -
[39] - Quote
Memphis Baas wrote:Yeah, your last request is not cosmetic, and would change bumping significantly.
It's pretty easy to change bumping; CCP can change the popular bumping ships (Machariel), they can change the mass / momentum calculations to have different results for impacts, etc. They have a whole range of possibilities, from minor tweaks to completely disabling bumping.
So the fact that they've left it unchanged despite numerous requests from the high-sec PVE crowd should tell you something.
I'm guessing low priority, low or undetermined impact on gameplay, too much effort for the rewards. As a programmer I cannot count the number of times a customer demanded a change which was "just this small thing, how long could it take?", except it wasn't small at all and side effects would last for weeks after the change was pushed into production. Any and all modifications to the game phisics' engine are sure to fall into this case.
Need more well-formatted linking.
Swearing in Sardinian.
|
Tristan Valentina
Moira. Villore Accords
61
|
Posted - 2016.10.05 17:01:43 -
[40] - Quote
I used to think this way, but Lore answers all of these questions.
It is called Science Fiction for a reason. The fiction is used to cover up holes in the science.
The fiction about Old Man Star is great for this stuff.
Not saying you dont, but you need to respect the fiction of the property you are in.
A combat game involving orbital mechanics would be amazing. |
|
TackyTachy1
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
113
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 07:51:32 -
[41] - Quote
More unrealistic, most likely technologically impossible but fun to think about: The effects of load on freighters and miners, empty is quick whilst loaded is stodgy and slow turning. Module loading affecting weight and balance thereby affecting turning radius and acceleration. Probably could come up with more but this is enough to ignore, for now, anyways.
Forum Rep for a bunch of characters, couple corps
and one seriously Lost In Space multiboxer.
|
Takoma Panala
State War Academy Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 14:29:44 -
[42] - Quote
Tristan Valentina wrote:I used to think this way, but Lore answers all of these questions.
It is called Science Fiction for a reason. The fiction is used to cover up holes in the science.
The fiction about Old Man Star is great for this stuff.
Not saying you dont, but you need to respect the fiction of the property you are in.
A combat game involving orbital mechanics would be amazing.
Children of a Dead Earth: http://store.steampowered.com/app/476530/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSoVbwyrxDk |
DaReaper
Net 7 Cannon.Fodder
2898
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 19:44:45 -
[43] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: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.
they had this in 2004. You use dot use roids to block missiles. The issue was, the game would oddly think there were 'invisible' asteroids. so 9 time out of 10, even if the roid field was mined out, you'd miss your target and hit an invisible asteroid. it was extremely annoying. so they removed it
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
Yes i am optimistic about eve.. i'm giving it till dec 31st 2016 before i doom n gloom
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |