EVE Search - CCP shouldn't you fix transversal mechanics too if u want to fix speed

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP shouldn't you fix transversal mechanics too if u want to fix speed

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pur3Bl00D Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.07.26 19:37:00 - [1] As the new blog states ccp dev's are going to "nerf" speed in many ways, as in the post in information section of forums. At the same time they will lower the effect webs have on ships. There is one thing which is missing from that devs is any reference on tracking and most importantly transversal speed. Currently if a fast ship is orbiting a slow, even static, ship its turrets cannot hit it cause even though its REAL transversal compared to its target is close to zero, game mechanics make it so that its transveral is really high. Practically this means that the fast moving ships cannot hit its target. Does anyone things that this is something that should be looked on too since major changes are taking place to speed modules stacking? Also i've seen graphs on speed mins and max but no graphs or mention of inertia which i also thing is a big factor in a fight of a small fast ship vs a bigger one. If speed is going to be reduced that drastically shouldn't inertia of small ships, frigates and cruiser hulls get boosted too? In order to make them able to orbit closer to a target thus attaining big transversal values and being able to avoid damage?
DudTrap Wreckless Abandon	Posted - 2008.07.26 19:55:00 - [2] Edited by: DudTrap on 26/07/2008 19:56:00 Train for lasers :) There not affected by transversal :D:D
RigelKentaurus Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral	Posted - 2008.07.26 19:57:00 - [3] You're asking CCP to take into account the ship orientation in a 3D space to calculate the angular velocity of the targets in the frame of the ship. While it makes a lot of sense CCP is going to have to remake their physics engine. But you have to keep in mind that then bigger ships will be able to reduce your angular velocity by spinning. And the lag will of course increase. _________ Someday, EVE may look like this.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.07.26 20:00:00 - [4] Better to leave things as they are in this respect. It works.
Pur3Bl00D Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.07.26 20:06:00 - [5] Originally by: RigelKentaurus You're asking CCP to take into account the ship orientation in a 3D space to calculate the angular velocity of the targets in the frame of the ship. While it makes a lot of sense CCP is going to have to remake their physics engine. But you have to keep in mind that then bigger ships will be able to reduce your angular velocity by spinning. And the lag will of course increase. hmmm i'm confused, im asking for my fast orbiting ship to be able to hit its target like it should since the point/ship which i'm orbiting is practically static against me. And since webs are nerfed for a <10km fast orbit fight to be practically viable with a cruiser for example i should be able to hit my target. And before getting flamed all over the place, i am not asking anything really. Just pointing out something and waiting for other ppl opinions, maybe i'm missing something and all is good in the transversal department.
RigelKentaurus Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral	Posted - 2008.07.26 20:20:00 - [6] Edited by: RigelKentaurus on 26/07/2008 20:21:17 It's not a flame, I'm just telling you what's actually hidden behind your proposal and what it implies. Edit: but from a personnal point of view, the physics engine should indeed be remade, moreover since most desyncs seem to come from faulty collision calculations. _________ Someday, EVE may look like this.
Meiyang Lee Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy	Posted - 2008.07.26 20:33:00 - [7] EVE bases the tracking calculations on relative velocities rather than physical position as far as I know, which is the problem, your orbiting velocity is used for tracking rather than your relative position to the target. (target is effectively stationary relative to your orbit) To change it you would need to change everything. The whole physics model would need to be redone, and since everything object in space is affected by that model it would be a QA nightmare of unimaginable proportions. They'd never be able to get all the bugs/exploits/oddities out of it within a reasonable time frame. It might take years to redesign the system and test it thoroughly enough to at least catch most of the problems that might crop up, and even then when it is deployed more stuff will come up, problems that'll be tricky to fix because of the way everything interacts with that model. The slightest change to the model could have huge consequences. Not sure if the investment is worth the cost at that point.
ZW Dewitt	Posted - 2008.07.26 21:08:00 - [8] Originally by: Pur3Bl00D hmmm i'm confused, im asking for my fast orbiting ship to be able to hit its target like it should since the point/ship which i'm orbiting is practically static against me. And since webs are nerfed for a <10km fast orbit fight to be practically viable with a cruiser for example i should be able to hit my target. And before getting flamed all over the place, i am not asking anything really. Just pointing out something and waiting for other ppl opinions, maybe i'm missing something and all is good in the transversal department. fly a crow.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.07.26 21:10:00 - [9] Originally by: Pur3Bl00D Originally by: RigelKentaurus You're asking CCP to take into account the ship orientation in a 3D space to calculate the angular velocity of the targets in the frame of the ship. While it makes a lot of sense CCP is going to have to remake their physics engine. But you have to keep in mind that then bigger ships will be able to reduce your angular velocity by spinning. And the lag will of course increase. hmmm i'm confused, im asking for my fast orbiting ship to be able to hit its target like it should since the point/ship which i'm orbiting is practically static against me. And since webs are nerfed for a <10km fast orbit fight to be practically viable with a cruiser for example i should be able to hit my target. And before getting flamed all over the place, i am not asking anything really. Just pointing out something and waiting for other ppl opinions, maybe i'm missing something and all is good in the transversal department. ah but the ship your orbiting isn't staying still compared to you.
RigelKentaurus Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral	Posted - 2008.07.26 21:45:00 - [10] Originally by: MotherMoon ah but the ship your orbiting isn't staying still compared to you. If you only consider its location, then the ship you're orbiting is still. It would look like it's spinning though. _________ Someday, EVE may look like this.
Haks'he Lirky Dominion Imperium	Posted - 2008.07.26 22:24:00 - [11] Originally by: RigelKentaurus Originally by: MotherMoon ah but the ship your orbiting isn't staying still compared to you. If you only consider its location, then the ship you're orbiting is still. It would look like it's spinning though. Correct me if I am wrong. I think it is possible to find a orbital speed and angle where you would not need to adjust the angle of your guns in relation of your target while you are orbiting, however given enough speed vs distance ratio you will need to use the tracking of the turret to compensate for high orbital speed. or is there some math I am missing?
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.26 22:29:00 - [12] Originally by: Haks'he Lirky Originally by: RigelKentaurus Originally by: MotherMoon ah but the ship your orbiting isn't staying still compared to you. If you only consider its location, then the ship you're orbiting is still. It would look like it's spinning though. Correct me if I am wrong. I think it is possible to find a orbital speed and angle where you would not need to adjust the angle of your guns in relation of your target while you are orbiting, however given enough speed vs distance ratio you will need to use the tracking of the turret to compensate for high orbital speed. or is there some math I am missing? You're preety much correct. EvE doesn't work that way however (hey, it's a submarine simulator in space, what do you expect?). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
RigelKentaurus Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral	Posted - 2008.07.26 22:34:00 - [13] Originally by: Haks'he Lirky Correct me if I am wrong. I think it is possible to find a orbital speed and angle where you would not need to adjust the angle of your guns in relation of your target while you are orbiting, however given enough speed vs distance ratio you will need to use the tracking of the turret to compensate for high orbital speed. or is there some math I am missing? That's quite right, as long as your orbit around the target is circular, then to you its angular velocity is 0, so your gun wouldn't even have to move. Things get messy when your speed is too high compared to your agility, then your ship can't remain on a circular orbit. _________ Someday, EVE may look like this.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.07.26 22:39:00 - [14] Originally by: RigelKentaurus Originally by: Haks'he Lirky Correct me if I am wrong. I think it is possible to find a orbital speed and angle where you would not need to adjust the angle of your guns in relation of your target while you are orbiting, however given enough speed vs distance ratio you will need to use the tracking of the turret to compensate for high orbital speed. or is there some math I am missing? That's quite right, as long as your orbit around the target is circular, then to you its angular velocity is 0, so your gun wouldn't even have to move. Things get messy when your speed is too high compared to your agility, then your ship can't remain on a circular orbit. wait something isn't quite right with this... if a target is standing still and you run around it then you'd have to aim ahead of the object that is still to hit it no?
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.26 22:50:00 - [15] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 26/07/2008 22:51:11 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 26/07/2008 22:49:59 Originally by: MotherMoon wait something isn't quite right with this... if a target is standing still and you run around it then you'd have to aim ahead of the object that is still to hit it no? Yes. However, you aim ahead (or behind, rather. well, lazors just aim at the object,only applies to munitions which have significant travel time) the same amount every time (provided you're in a perfect circular orbit, your target is completely stationary, and you're orbiting at a constant velocity). So, your guns stay stationary as long as they're gyrostabilized. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Kransthow Victory Not Vengeance Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.07.26 22:51:00 - [16] Originally by: MotherMoon wait something isn't quite right with this... if a target is standing still and you run around it then you'd have to aim ahead of the object that is still to hit it no? behind the object My alt is "Is Forporn"
Sid Zero	Posted - 2008.07.26 22:52:00 - [17] Edited by: Sid Zero on 26/07/2008 22:53:33 The solution is simple, currently the calculation for the radial velocity is something like (V_ship_a + V_ship_b)/ d and it is the same for both ships. All that needds to be done is two seperate transversal speeds need to be calculated ---> the transversal which affects ship A's guns is (V_ship_b)/d and the transversal that affects ships B's guns is (V_ship_a)/d , where V_ship_a is the relative velocity of Ship A relative to ship B and vice versa. I really doubt that it would be required to redo the entire engine as some people have stated.
Sid Zero	Posted - 2008.07.26 23:03:00 - [18] Originally by: Kransthow Originally by: MotherMoon wait something isn't quite right with this... if a target is standing still and you run around it then you'd have to aim ahead of the object that is still to hit it no? behind the object Unless the velocity of your bullets is negative
Doddy Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.07.26 23:13:00 - [19] Well, as i see it speed needs fixed cos it hurts gameplay. Tracking doesn't hurt gameplay so it should be left alone. If you want realism eve would need completely re-done almost from scratch. I think it would be great if someone did make a proper space-sim, but don't go ruining eve trying to make it.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.07.26 23:27:00 - [20] Edited by: MotherMoon on 26/07/2008 23:28:14 Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 26/07/2008 22:51:11 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 26/07/2008 22:49:59 Originally by: MotherMoon wait something isn't quite right with this... if a target is standing still and you run around it then you'd have to aim ahead of the object that is still to hit it no? Yes. However, you aim ahead (or behind, rather. well, lazors just aim at the object,only applies to munitions which have significant travel time) the same amount every time (provided you're in a perfect circular orbit, your target is completely stationary, and you're orbiting at a constant velocity). So, your guns stay stationary as long as they're gyrostabilized. wel no the guns are moving around on the gyro trying to stay pointing in the same direction. and yes opps behind :P SO if you went to fast they couldn't track the target right? because they would lag to muc and need better bases? also wouldn't it be cool if lasers ignored sig radius like that? like the turret has to track but it doesn't have to figure out where to fire because it just shoots right at the ship :P
RigelKentaurus Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral	Posted - 2008.07.26 23:28:00 - [21] Originally by: Sid Zero [the radial velocity which affects ship A's guns is (V_ship_b)/d and the radial velocity that affects ships B's guns is (V_ship_a)/d , where V_ship_a is the transversal velocity of Ship A relative to ship B and vice versa. I really doubt that it would be required to redo the entire engine as some people have stated. Nothing wrong with this at all, the problem lies in the way the transversal velocity is calculated. Currently to calculate this the physics engine seems to assume that both ships go in straigth line, which is wrong. The spinning of both ships must be taken into account, of course there are many ways to do this, but it still requires a bit of coding, testing, etc. Originally by: Doddy I think it would be great if someone did make a proper space-sim, but don't go ruining eve trying to make it. http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ _________ Someday, EVE may look like this.
Pur3Bl00D Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.07.27 13:53:00 - [22] Originally by: Doddy Well, as i see it speed needs fixed cos it hurts gameplay. Tracking doesn't hurt gameplay so it should be left alone. If you want realism eve would need completely re-done almost from scratch. I think it would be great if someone did make a proper space-sim, but don't go ruining eve trying to make it. You got it all wrong, a HAC, cruiser orbiting at 4.5km/s at a range of 17km has such high transversal with current mechanics that it cannot hit its target with guns (for example artillery). This in terms of physics as well as in terms of mechanics simply does not make sense since the object/ship you are orbiting is practically static compared to you and your guns should be able to hit it. So since speed is nerfed this way shouldn't this issue be fixed too?
F'nog Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. Celestial Industrial Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.27 20:09:00 - [23] Originally by: Pur3Bl00D Originally by: Doddy Well, as i see it speed needs fixed cos it hurts gameplay. Tracking doesn't hurt gameplay so it should be left alone. If you want realism eve would need completely re-done almost from scratch. I think it would be great if someone did make a proper space-sim, but don't go ruining eve trying to make it. You got it all wrong, a HAC, cruiser orbiting at 4.5km/s at a range of 17km has such high transversal with current mechanics that it cannot hit its target with guns (for example artillery). This in terms of physics as well as in terms of mechanics simply does not make sense since the object/ship you are orbiting is practically static compared to you and your guns should be able to hit it. So since speed is nerfed this way shouldn't this issue be fixed too? Balance. Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari F'nog for Amarr Emperor. Nuff said Originally by: Chribba Go F'nog! You're a hero! Not a Zero! /me bows
Piper Halliwell Minmatar Phantom Squad G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.07.27 20:18:00 - [24] Get all your friends, and your friends of friends and their dogs to make hundreds of posts about it and you will get your way. CCP has more than proved if you ***** long and hard enough about it they will just do it to shut people up. Cases in point, Gallente nerf, nos nerf and now nano nerf in my experience in eve. So just set up a new thread daily or maybe 5 or 6 times an hour like some do and you will get your way. -------------------- You've got a gun, I've got a gun, Let's write a tragic ending.
Hieronimus Rex	Posted - 2008.07.27 20:44:00 - [25] CCP should just eliminate transversal and tracking completely to reduce database load.
Cor Aidan KNIGHT'S OF THE ROUND ROOM ReZZerecteD AlckemisTs	Posted - 2008.07.27 20:53:00 - [26] Please review Newtonian relativity before starting this discussion again. CCP currently computes transversal correctly: if you are orbiting a ship and you pick a frame of reference where your target is stationary (and simply spinning), there is an equally valid reference frame where you are stationary but spinning and your target is orbiting you (in the opposite direction but with equal magnitudes). I was going to write a longer post but I realized the following: the changes you suggest would not result in the outcome you desire.
Faife Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa	Posted - 2008.07.27 20:54:00 - [27] the current system is arbitrary, but consistent. that's all we can hope for in this cold cruel universe. no, not the eve one - -
RigelKentaurus Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral	Posted - 2008.07.27 21:19:00 - [28] Originally by: Cor Aidan Please review Newtonian relativity before starting this discussion again. CCP currently computes transversal correctly: if you are orbiting a ship and you pick a frame of reference where your target is stationary (and simply spinning), there is an equally valid reference frame where you are stationary but spinning and your target is orbiting you (in the opposite direction but with equal magnitudes). I was going to write a longer post but I realized the following: the changes you suggest would not result in the outcome you desire. When it comes to tracking, the only relevant frame is the one of your ship. And in the case of EVE like orbits, the target has in this frame a transversal velocity of 0. So no, CCP doesn't compute transversal correctly at all. _________ Someday, EVE may look like this.
Rhatar Khurin Minmatar The PeacekeeperZ Phobos Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.27 21:20:00 - [29] all the talk about a physics engine, i am not sure there is one. If there was we'd have thing like being able to tractor beam other ships and other awesome abilities.
Cor Aidan KNIGHT'S OF THE ROUND ROOM ReZZerecteD AlckemisTs	Posted - 2008.07.27 21:43:00 - [30] Originally by: RigelKentaurus When it comes to tracking, the only relevant frame is the one of your ship. And in the case of EVE like orbits, the target has in this frame a transversal velocity of 0. So no, CCP doesn't compute transversal correctly at all. I think I just realized that there is confusion by what CCP, myself, and other members of the forums mean by the phrase 'transversal velocity'. In one sense (the CCP sense) it is simply the tangential component of the relative velocities of the two bodies. This will be nonzero for any bodies with ships that are moving in any direction except directly on a line with each other. It sounds, however, that others refer to "net relative angular speed" which includes not just the tangential velocity but also the orientation of the ships. It is possible that if one body is rotating about its axis in the same angular speed but in the opposite direction as the other body is rotating about it, then the relative angular speed might be zero. For instance, if there is a body orbiting another one in a circle, and the orbiting body is also spinning with the same angular velocity as its orbit, then the orientation of the central body does not change relative to the orbiting body. Maybe just pretend that your skills and ship tracking refer to the ability to keep the spins correct, and that this is more difficult with faster, closer targets. That said, I think the poster that said "things are self consistent, that's good enough" is probably the best observation in this thread.
Dantes Revenge Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.27 22:02:00 - [31] Now I'm confused. If you are orbiting, why do your guns need to track at all? If you are flying over an object, your guns point down to fire at it and as you dive down the side of it, from your perspective the object is still below you so the guns need not move. You can do this in 2 dimensions on a roundabout while driving. As you go around it, the roundabout is always on your right (UK of course and on the left in the US). If you were shooting at something on the roundabout, you put the appropriate arm out of the window and fire but at no time will you ever need to fire through your windshield because the target will never be in front of you. Even if you went around it in a eliptical pattern, it would only make a couple of degrees difference unless the eliptic was extreme. For medium weapons in Eve, these few degrees would be easy to keep up with. I have done it many times in an inty and my guns always point the same way unless I change direction or collide with a structure, asteroid etc. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken.
RigelKentaurus Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral	Posted - 2008.07.27 22:07:00 - [32] Originally by: Cor Aidan I think I just realized that there is confusion by what CCP, myself, and other members of the forums mean by the phrase 'transversal velocity'. In one sense (the CCP sense) it is simply the tangential component of the relative velocities of the two bodies. This will be nonzero for any bodies with ships that are moving in any direction except directly on a line with each other. It sounds, however, that others refer to "net relative angular speed" which includes not just the tangential velocity but also the orientation of the ships. It is possible that if one body is rotating about its axis in the same angular speed but in the opposite direction as the other body is rotating about it, then the relative angular speed might be zero. For instance, if there is a body orbiting another one in a circle, and the orbiting body is also spinning with the same angular velocity as its orbit, then the orientation of the central body does not change relative to the orbiting body. You got it, people usually don't think about frames that are spinning. And neither does the current physics engine. Quote: Maybe just pretend that your skills and ship tracking refer to the ability to keep the spins correct, and that this is more difficult with faster, closer targets. There's already the agility variable for that Quote: That said, I think the poster that said "things are self consistent, that's good enough" is probably the best observation in this thread. I agree, changing the way tracking works would completely change the game (It would be more realistic though). Currently the way tracking works is good enough for the balance of EVE. _________ Someday, EVE may look like this.
Zibster	Posted - 2008.07.27 22:24:00 - [33] The problem with tracking right now, is that guns behave as they weren't attached to the ship. So if your ship rotates, the guns still point in the same direction as they were before. It has some good sides and some bad - for example if you do a 180 degree turn you don't have to wait for your guns to turn around. On the other hand when you are orbiting someone at a very high speed you have problems with tracking (even though you shouldn't).

Pages: 1 2 :: [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.