| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Michael Caldar
DangerZone Inc.
   |
Posted - 2007.03.22 15:39:00 -
[1]
Well... According to CCP it equals to whatever nano-hating and - what appears to be from the arguments put forward - gatecamping loud crowd wants it to be.
Nanofibers have gotten their balls cut off - yee-bloody-ha! Whatever happened to the physics? Mass goes down, thrust remains the same hence the speed goes... No it doesn't. Not anymore anyhow. If nano fitted Typhoons caused so much of a stir amongst negative security status pilots - nerf the ship! Why screw it for the rest of us? 
|
Marquis Dean
The Last Thing You'll Ever See
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 15:43:00 -
[2]
Cause nanoDomis, nanoNightmares and... all those other nanoships that don't spring to mind are just as broken as the nanophoon?
---
|
Jernau Gurgeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 15:51:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Michael Caldar
Whatever happened to the physics? Mass goes down, thrust remains the same hence the speed goes... No it doesn't.
If you're going to start quoting physics, perhaps you should check your facts.
Force = mass x acceleration.
Speed is not the same as acceleration.
There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not. |
Wrayeth
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 15:52:00 -
[4]
Game balance > in-game physics.
-Wrayeth
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Might
As well
Train
Another
Race |
wierchas noobhunter
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 15:53:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Wrayeth
Game balance > in-game physics.
qft
hello i am wierchas !!!!
i pown yooooo |
Stamm
Amarr
Three Holdings
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 16:00:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Michael Caldar
Well... According to CCP it equals to whatever nano-hating and - what appears to be from the arguments put forward - gatecamping loud crowd wants it to be.
Nanofibers have gotten their balls cut off - yee-bloody-ha! Whatever happened to the physics? Mass goes down, thrust remains the same hence the speed goes... No it doesn't. Not anymore anyhow. If nano fitted Typhoons caused so much of a stir amongst negative security status pilots - nerf the ship! Why screw it for the rest of us?
Waah waah.
Now you can't fly a solo pwnmobile that can't get stopped.
Nanos/istabs meant people could not be tackled effectively.
Logging off in bubbles meant people didn't get killed.
Warp core stabs meant people could engage and if they weren't going to win warp away.
The game is better without them functioning that way.
Galaxian Recruitment Info |
Michael Caldar
DangerZone Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 16:04:00 -
[7]
You want easy solution to nanoBSs? There you go: nerf-stack the speed bonus.
After all, just about everything else is nerf-stacked - shields etc. It would still enable, say, indy drivers to come back from a delivery run quicker, it would still be within "normal" physics (mass down, thrust the same, speed up - well, sort of...) and it would resolve your beef with them nanoBSs. But that's just too easy, eh? 
|
Stamm
Amarr
Three Holdings
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 16:08:00 -
[8]
They went for an easy solution. They stopped the hull mods being one size fits all.
The modules themselves were overpowered.
As for industrials, well, I believe the Sigil, Prorator, etc need a bit of a look. Previously you could opt to fit them for speed, I've not tried my Prorator out again yet, but from what I've read the nerf hit them hard.
Then again they always could have used a bit of a boost anyway.
Galaxian Recruitment Info |
Wardo21
The Arcanum
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 16:11:00 -
[9]
Every ship I fly in EVE has some sort of rocket motor to provide thrust (acceleration).
Lighter weight same thrust does mean better acceleration, and probably better handling (agility). Real world physics means that no ship has a top speed (short of C).
Thrust in one direction is acceleration in that vector. Changing vectors (direction) at high speeds is very difficult and costly in terms of energy since you have to cancel any given vector with thrust against it. Inertia anyone?
Of course, changing the in-game physics to a real model would require way too much work and confuse a lot of players including me. And really complicate other in game mechanics such as grids (going too fast to stay in one) and stopping on the proverbial dime when you get to an object instead of colliding and damaging ship and object alike.
Lets move on to other bad physics, like my loot destroyer handily moving a battleship wreck at 500m/s without altering it's own path/speed. The mass ratio should be way in favor of pulling my destroyer over to the battleship, not the other way around.
Suspension of disbelief is required to some degree for a MMO game.
Wardo21
|
Commander Thrawn
Fluffy Rabbit Killers
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 16:34:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Stamm
Originally by: Michael Caldar
Well... According to CCP it equals to whatever nano-hating and - what appears to be from the arguments put forward - gatecamping loud crowd wants it to be.
Nanofibers have gotten their balls cut off - yee-bloody-ha! Whatever happened to the physics? Mass goes down, thrust remains the same hence the speed goes... No it doesn't. Not anymore anyhow. If nano fitted Typhoons caused so much of a stir amongst negative security status pilots - nerf the ship! Why screw it for the rest of us?
Waah waah.
Now you can't fly a solo pwnmobile that can't get stopped.
Nanos/istabs meant people could not be tackled effectively.
Logging off in bubbles meant people didn't get killed.
Warp core stabs meant people could engage and if they weren't going to win warp away.
The game is better without them functioning that way.
150% aggreed
|
Yarek Balear
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 17:47:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Commander Thrawn
150% aggreed
Actually, if you add my 100%, then that's 250%, isn't it ??? 
|
Yarek Balear
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 17:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Commander Thrawn
150% aggreed
Actually, if you add my 100%, then that's 250%, isn't it ???
|
Michael Caldar
DangerZone Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 17:59:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Force = mass x acceleration.
Speed is not the same as acceleration.
Granted, I did physics awhile back but the main principles of any engine relying on jet effluent of any kind should still be the same: mass of propellant x it's exit velocity should be equal mass of a rocket (ship, jetski, whatever else) x it's speed (I'm leaving out considerations of drag etc here - we are in space after all  ).
Never did physics in English so not so sure about the terminology but in Russian it's called "impulse" - mass x speed. If you think about it - it even feels kinda right: make it lighter (all other things being equal) - it's bound to go faster, don't you agree?... 
Originally by: Stamm
Waah waah.
Now you can't fly a solo pwnmobile that can't get stopped.
Never did, nor am I going to fly a "pwnmobile" - I work for a living in Eve, not hang by the gates hoping for an easy ISK. That's why this whole nano "fix" peeves me off so much - instead of hitting "autopilot" button and going to make a cup of tea I'll have to jump from gate to gate now - pain...
Originally by: Wardo21
Every ship I fly in EVE has some sort of rocket motor to provide thrust (acceleration).
Lighter weight same thrust does mean better acceleration, and probably better handling (agility). Real world physics means that no ship has a top speed (short of C).
Wardo21
That is not correct - you cannot go faster than your jet effluent's velocity. C (in Newtonian physics) is achievable (suspending all that goes with the theory of relativity) if your thrust provided by light (effluent with it's speed = C). Acceration we all love to quote is in a sense just a mean to get from 0 to whatever speed you are going at - it is not an absolute thing.
Originally by: Wardo21
Suspension of disbelief is required to some degree for a MMO game.
Oh yeah - can't agree more
_________________________________________________________
/me is getting ready to take flack for his gross misunderstanding of rocket science
|
Michael Caldar
DangerZone Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 17:59:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Force = mass x acceleration.
Speed is not the same as acceleration.
Granted, I did physics awhile back but the main principles of any engine relying on jet effluent of any kind should still be the same: mass of propellant x it's exit velocity should be equal mass of a rocket (ship, jetski, whatever else) x it's speed (I'm leaving out considerations of drag etc here - we are in space after all ).
Never did physics in English so not so sure about the terminology but in Russian it's called "impulse" - mass x speed. If you think about it - it even feels kinda right: make it lighter (all other things being equal) - it's bound to go faster, don't you agree?...
Originally by: Stamm
Waah waah.
Now you can't fly a solo pwnmobile that can't get stopped.
Never did, nor am I going to fly a "pwnmobile" - I work for a living in Eve, not hang by the gates hoping for an easy ISK. That's why this whole nano "fix" peeves me off so much - instead of hitting "autopilot" button and going to make a cup of tea I'll have to jump from gate to gate now - pain...
Originally by: Wardo21
Every ship I fly in EVE has some sort of rocket motor to provide thrust (acceleration).
Lighter weight same thrust does mean better acceleration, and probably better handling (agility). Real world physics means that no ship has a top speed (short of C).
Wardo21
That is not correct - you cannot go faster than your jet effluent's velocity. C (in Newtonian physics) is achievable (suspending all that goes with the theory of relativity) if your thrust provided by light (effluent with it's speed = C). Acceration we all love to quote is in a sense just a mean to get from 0 to whatever speed you are going at - it is not an absolute thing.
Originally by: Wardo21
Suspension of disbelief is required to some degree for a MMO game.
Oh yeah - can't agree more
_________________________________________________________
/me is getting ready to take flack for his gross misunderstanding of rocket science
|
Hllaxiu
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 18:13:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Michael Caldar
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Force = mass x acceleration.
Speed is not the same as acceleration.
Granted, I did physics awhile back but the main principles of any engine relying on jet effluent of any kind should still be the same: mass of propellant x it's exit velocity should be equal mass of a rocket (ship, jetski, whatever else) x it's speed (I'm leaving out considerations of drag etc here - we are in space after all ).
Thats still a second law relationship. The thrust that you're describing is a force equal to -uR, where u is the velocity of the thrust relative to the rocket, and R is the rate of mass ejection, ΔM/Δt
Read more here.
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Dragy
Caldari
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 18:15:00 -
[16]
2+2= ? it's obvious ! 11
|
Rolf Rabiat
Minmatar
Vale Heavy Industries
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 19:03:00 -
[17]
One thing that I always think is strange is the idea of an "Up" and a "Down" in space.
It seems like everything in this vast universe have all agreed to wich directions this "Up" is. The drones know it. The roid belts know it. Every damn ships computer knows it.
I mean as you have no gravity (but in a way many, everywhere) there is no feeling of "falling down" thus no "Up".
Yeah yeah its a game after all. In WOW cows can talk....
|
Hllaxiu
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 19:27:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Rolf Rabiat
One thing that I always think is strange is the idea of an "Up" and a "Down" in space.
It seems like everything in this vast universe have all agreed to wich directions this "Up" is. The drones know it. The roid belts know it. Every damn ships computer knows it.
That really shouldn't bug you too much. If you modeled the sol system in eve, it has a rather obvious choice for the up down vector as the orbits of all the planets (sorry pluto) are in essentially the same 2d surface. The only decision then is to arbitrarily decide which direction on the vector is up, and which is down. Obviously some standards body in EVE decided this for all the solar systems we're in, and our pod's navigation interface locks us to 90degrees up/down so we don't lose orientation.
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Terianna Eri
Amarr
STK Scientific
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 19:32:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: Rolf Rabiat
One thing that I always think is strange is the idea of an "Up" and a "Down" in space.
It seems like everything in this vast universe have all agreed to wich directions this "Up" is. The drones know it. The roid belts know it. Every damn ships computer knows it.
That really shouldn't bug you too much. If you modeled the sol system in eve, it has a rather obvious choice for the up down vector as the orbits of all the planets (sorry pluto) are in essentially the same 2d surface. The only decision then is to arbitrarily decide which direction on the vector is up, and which is down. Obviously some standards body in EVE decided this for all the solar systems we're in, and our pod's navigation interface locks us to 90degrees up/down so we don't lose orientation.
While that does make sense, I feel like eve would be more immsersive if it were more three-dimensional.
I always smile when I head to a stargate or a deadspace gate that's like, 40au up, because it's like "oh rite, i'm in space, cool"
__________________________________
Originally by: smallgreenblur
Wierdly enough, smaller and less powerful ships tend to need greater numbers to defeat larger, more powerful ships.
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar
RONA Deepspace
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 19:39:00 -
[20]
Thank you to whomever pointed out that these ships should be able to go as fast as they want with real time physics. I find the fix very accommodating and more realistic. A huge BS shouldn't be able to maintain a ridiculous speed in a tight orbit....EVER, It also fixed the overdrive bug and gave small ships the real speed they needed. (Percentage now, not a fixed number.) You can still fly your really fast BS's, just now you have to think about where it is flying so you don't over shoot your orbit.
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 19:39:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Michael Caldar
Whatever happened to the physics? Mass goes down, thrust remains the same hence the speed goes... No it doesn't.
If you're going to start quoting physics, perhaps you should check your facts.
Force = mass x acceleration.
Speed is not the same as acceleration.
Noob, force is the first derivative of linear momentum w.r.t. [d/dt(mv)] time, meaning that you need a larger velocity change over the same time to completely match the force (force being constant of the engines on the ship.) See the velocity now, nublin?
|
Hoshi
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 20:08:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Dragy
2+2= ? it's obvious ! 11
Noooo, it's 22 of course!
----------------------------------------
A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
Belenkas
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 20:18:00 -
[23]
Forget about physics in EVE content related to speed. Should it be realistic, we would rarely see ANY ship going below 20km/s. With the current speeds(like 60m/s for some laaaarge ships) you couldnt even take off from Earth's gravitational force, even more, you couldn't even take off from Solar gravitation. Should you start somewhere halfway between planets close to sun and try 60m/s, in the end you would end up either crashing into another planet(if it happens to be on way/close enough to pull you in) or after looooong journey you would end up burning into sun. Thats right, you wouldnt travel to pluto EVER in such speed. Same for 500m/s....
While I can't remember the space speeds(or whatever they are called in english), they are much higher than 500m/s.
BUT, if all ships went 20km/s, imagine the battles... Would be quite impossible.
So, for the sake of FUN(and I hope everybody playing this game is seeking only for fun), lets forget the physics and look how it would be more interesting.
As for the nano-nerf, well nano-BS still go quite fast, but there is more realism added to it - can't orbit at such speed.
|
Morreia
The Celestial Element
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 20:26:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Belenkas
Forget about physics in EVE content related to speed. Should it be realistic, we would rarely see ANY ship going below 20km/s. With the current speeds(like 60m/s for some laaaarge ships) you couldnt even take off from Earth's gravitational force, even more, you couldn't even take off from Solar gravitation. Should you start somewhere halfway between planets close to sun and try 60m/s, in the end you would end up either crashing into another planet(if it happens to be on way/close enough to pull you in) or after looooong journey you would end up burning into sun. Thats right, you wouldnt travel to pluto EVER in such speed. Same for 500m/s....
While I can't remember the space speeds(or whatever they are called in english), they are much higher than 500m/s.
BUT, if all ships went 20km/s, imagine the battles... Would be quite impossible.
So, for the sake of FUN(and I hope everybody playing this game is seeking only for fun), lets forget the physics and look how it would be more interesting.
As for the nano-nerf, well nano-BS still go quite fast, but there is more realism added to it - can't orbit at such speed.
i think the speeds in EVE are probably considered the overall speed of ship including escape velocity, orbit velocity etc, minus escape velocity/orbit velocity, so end up with you speed in relation to everything else. If it weren't liek this when you told you ship to stop you'd go wizzing into the sun or nearest planet/baclhole/asteroid nearby and whatever you we're sitting next to merily before would go zooming away.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Mercenaries of Andosia
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 20:29:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 22/03/2007 20:28:36
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 22/03/2007 20:27:49
Originally by: Michael Caldar
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Force = mass x acceleration.
Speed is not the same as acceleration.
Granted, I did physics awhile back but the main principles of any engine relying on jet effluent of any kind should still be the same: mass of propellant x it's exit velocity should be equal mass of a rocket (ship, jetski, whatever else) x it's speed (I'm leaving out considerations of drag etc here - we are in space after all ).
Never did physics in English so not so sure about the terminology but in Russian it's called "impulse" - mass x speed. If you think about it - it even feels kinda right: make it lighter (all other things being equal) - it's bound to go faster, don't you agree?...
For starters, you are assuming that there is a limited mass of propelent, which there is not in Eve's model. Additionally eve's model assumes, quite wrongly, that in space constant thrust equals to constant speed... If Eve model had anything to do with physics a ship wouldn't deaccelerate once its AB was turned off...
Yes, if a ship has less mass with the same thrust in a real physical model it should accelerate faster and reach a higher end speed after its limited rocket fuel ended. Both things do not apply here.
In the current eve model, though, ships do accelerate quicker with nanos and they do reach a higher speed when using AB/MWD modules. It is an innacurate model of the physical equivalent, but not more inacurate than the inconsistences I listed above.
Another nice example of physical inconsistences are:
- the super-elastic bounces on eve.
- the "stop" command and the anchoring of cans and stations (in relation to which referencial for gods sake XD)
- the absolute missile speeds (the missiles should add their maximum speed to the speed of the ship that launches it in the flight direction)
- the effect of speed in the turrets on the faster ship that is orbiting a slow one (the turrets of the faster ship would have to turn very little, so only very small tracking penalties should be applyed to it)
Originally by: Michael Caldar
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Wardo21
Every ship I fly in EVE has some sort of rocket motor to provide thrust (acceleration).
Lighter weight same thrust does mean better acceleration, and probably better handling (agility). Real world physics means that no ship has a top speed (short of C).
Wardo21
That is not correct - you cannot go faster than your jet effluent's velocity. C (in Newtonian physics) is achievable (suspending all that goes with the theory of relativity) if your thrust provided by light (effluent with it's speed = C). Acceration we all love to quote is in a sense just a mean to get from 0 to whatever speed you are going at - it is not an absolute thing.
Again you are assuming that there is a limited mass of fuel. Which makes sense in the physical world but not in what I will call eve's physics :P
Originally by: Michael Caldar
Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
Originally by: Wardo21
Suspension of disbelief is required to some degree for a MMO game.
Oh yeah - can't agree more
Especially on eve...
|
Vincent Almasy
Gallente
The Underground
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 21:28:00 -
[26]
by same rights of that law of motion you should not be able to come out of warp even if you cut off the engines.
|
Morreia
The Celestial Element
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 21:41:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Michael Caldar
Originally by: Wardo21
Every ship I fly in EVE has some sort of rocket motor to provide thrust (acceleration).
Lighter weight same thrust does mean better acceleration, and probably better handling (agility). Real world physics means that no ship has a top speed (short of C).
Wardo21
That is not correct - you cannot go faster than your jet effluent's velocity. C (in Newtonian physics) is achievable (suspending all that goes with the theory of relativity) if your thrust provided by light (effluent with it's speed = C). Acceration we all love to quote is in a sense just a mean to get from 0 to whatever speed you are going at - it is not an absolute thing.
Surely though to get to C the mass of the ship would have to be less than or equal the effluent of its engines. The only problem then is the only thing that can travel at the speed of light is light and that has 0/negliable mass.
Or am I just being stupid (the furthest I have taken physics is GCSE)
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
Free Trade Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 22:12:00 -
[28]
2+2=22
__________________________________________
Yes it is great being amarr.
I am minmatar,fly amarr,use gellente drones and am in caldari space. |
Altrex Stoppel
SniggWaffe
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 00:49:00 -
[29]
Well in the EvE world 2+2=2+(.87(2))= 3.74
|
Trisae
|
Posted - 2007.03.23 01:37:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Rolf Rabiat
One thing that I always think is strange is the idea of an "Up" and a "Down" in space.
It seems like everything in this vast universe have all agreed to wich directions this "Up" is. The drones know it. The roid belts know it. Every damn ships computer knows it.
I mean as you have no gravity (but in a way many, everywhere) there is no feeling of "falling down" thus no "Up".
Yeah yeah its a game after all. In WOW cows can talk....
If there wasn't up and down designed into eve flying around would make you feel sick and dizzy Humans brains just aren't made to handle thinking about zero-G movement.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |