These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Why a plane in a 3D space game? - A choice between 1st and 3rd person view

Author
Mark Androcius
#21 - 2012-04-17 15:11:46 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Now you get it. Was not too hard, was it?


This merely means you made a terrible attempt at explaining what you wanted.
And like i said in the same post you just quoted from, it has nothing to do with ship spinning.

In the captains quarters, the camera is centered on you and the ship is rendered in a completely different way then when in space.

So it would still need a pretty large engine overhaul.
Whitehound
#22 - 2012-04-17 15:19:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I agree with you, I think some of these arbitrary structures are not needed, and in fact take from the game.
But would gameplay be better or worse for the changes?

It would be a simple button under the Camera Settings. You choose how you want to view the game. From there on will people be able to experience the game in a new view. A view which was used in many other space games in the past. You can turn it on and off whenever you like. More choice means more players can get what they want and because it is the age of 3D games can one not give a game too many perspectives.

CCP should ask themselves: does a game sell better when a player can choose between 1st and 3rd person view?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Aphoxema G
Khushakor Clan
#23 - 2012-04-17 15:20:10 UTC
Not everything has to, but flying a ship upside-down wouldn't actually serve you any purpose, just add confusion for some people. It actually is, essentially, more realistic to have a conventional zenith/nadir the societies have agreed on (though I have no idea what the reference point would be) as it does help with issues like docking, fleet coordination and identification.

It's not realistic that everyone uses it all the time, but randomly having ships upside-down wouldn't add anything to the experience.
Whitehound
#24 - 2012-04-17 15:22:33 UTC
Mark Androcius wrote:
This merely means you made a terrible attempt at explaining what you wanted.
And like i said in the same post you just quoted from, it has nothing to do with ship spinning.

In the captains quarters, the camera is centered on you and the ship is rendered in a completely different way then when in space.

So it would still need a pretty large engine overhaul.

No. You use the same engine. Should be very little thing to do as the engine already facilitates the structures to rotate the ship and the view simultaneously. You would simply take the vector of the ship needed to render it steady and take it off the vector for rendering the space around it. Should not be more than a few lines of code. What will be more work is to add the GUI element to enable and disable it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Whitehound
#25 - 2012-04-17 15:28:08 UTC
Aphoxema G wrote:
Not everything has to, but flying a ship upside-down wouldn't actually serve you any purpose, just add confusion for some people. It actually is, essentially, more realistic to have a conventional zenith/nadir the societies have agreed on (though I have no idea what the reference point would be) as it does help with issues like docking, fleet coordination and identification.

It's not realistic that everyone uses it all the time, but randomly having ships upside-down wouldn't add anything to the experience.

You have not played many space games. That is all. My first one was Elite on the C64. I loved how the ships danced on the little tactical view up and down when I manoeuvred the ship. Freelancer had it, too, I believe.

I am sure the next one will come and say that it will not work, because, you know, it needs a joystick to "function". Roll

The training wheels keep on turning ...

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Mark Androcius
#26 - 2012-04-17 16:40:53 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
You have not played many space games. That is all. My first one was Elite on the C64. I loved how the ships danced on the little tactical view up and down when I manoeuvred the ship. Freelancer had it, too, I believe.

I am sure the next one will come and say that it will not work, because, you know, it needs a joystick to "function". Roll

The training wheels keep on turning ...


I don't know why exactly, perhaps because i only really started playing with computers since about 1988, but i never really enjoyed Elite all that much.

You had a Commodore? A-W-E-SOME, respect, respect, respect.

Even though i am more of an Amiga nut.


I long for the day, when a new keyboard sized computer, running stably on either AmigaOS or MorphOS comes on the market.
Of course including the custom chips ( although nowadays, they'd probably just be for toying with ).
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-04-17 18:28:47 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Why is that the game always puts me on a plane when it is a 3D space game? My ships always roll so that they stand vertically on the plane of the solar system. Why do we need this again?

Can we get rid of it?



why are their planes in the real world 3d space? Inertia, gravatation, decay...

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Quade Warren
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-04-17 18:29:09 UTC
Mark Androcius wrote:
In space, there is no up or down, however, when in a cube, there is a top, a bottom and 4 sides and games like this are made in a "cube", making a completely new game engine, that replicates actual space and it's physics, is next to impossible, quite expensive and very time consuming, probably even something that would require lots of gigabytes to install on your pc.


Ender disagrees with you. =)
Mark Androcius
#29 - 2012-04-17 19:15:08 UTC
Quade Warren wrote:
Ender disagrees with you. =)


ENDER :D Man, you are one of the very few chaps from our corp, that is still playing :)
Aphoxema G
Khushakor Clan
#30 - 2012-04-17 20:07:55 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
You have not played many space games. That is all. My first one was Elite on the C64. I loved how the ships danced on the little tactical view up and down when I manoeuvred the ship. Freelancer had it, too, I believe.

I am sure the next one will come and say that it will not work, because, you know, it needs a joystick to "function". Roll

The training wheels keep on turning ...


I've played dozens of "space games", but keep in mind that EVE is not F-15 fighting a MiG-29, it's a multi-billion dollar naval warship the size of a small country fighting other massive war machines. Thousands of people are responsible for operating these things and fancy maneuvers and pointing your guns with the nose of your ship does not make sense.

Mainframes calculate firing solutions, we're just telling them who we want our weapons to hit. In fast-paced space/aerial combat, your tiny vessel isn't designed for lateral strafing and keeping that low profile and high speed is necessary for them to function. When the day comes for it to be practical to put self-aiming turrets on fighters, dogfighting (which is actually an extraordinarily rare event) will be a thing of the past.

In space, with turrets that cover your entire horizon, which way your ship points up really doesn't make a bit of difference, and in a civilized (I know I'm reaching) like the EVE universe, a little convention would be necessary to keep space travel simple.
Kelly Kavanagh
Doomheim
#31 - 2012-04-17 20:15:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kelly Kavanagh
We could use a better physics engine. One that follows Newton's laws of motion.
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar
#32 - 2012-04-17 20:19:25 UTC
Mechanically speaking it makes no difference whatsoever: your ship appears to be aligned one way or another but as an object, as far as I'm aware, is just a sphere with a set of properties. All of the graphics and shiny things is just eye candy. So going along that line of thought, it furthermore makes sense that there is an arbitrary plane for all ships to settle on. Why? Because it makes life and piloting simpler. I manually pilot. A lot. I fly frigates and fast nano cruisers. And I know many others who do too! So doesn't it make sense that I can call out on comms "Everyone burn up!" when I'm leading a nanosquad?
Whitehound
#33 - 2012-04-17 20:58:43 UTC
Rek Jaiga wrote:
Mechanically speaking it makes no difference whatsoever: your ship appears to be aligned one way or another but as an object, as far as I'm aware, is just a sphere with a set of properties. All of the graphics and shiny things is just eye candy. So going along that line of thought, it furthermore makes sense that there is an arbitrary plane for all ships to settle on. Why? Because it makes life and piloting simpler. I manually pilot. A lot. I fly frigates and fast nano cruisers. And I know many others who do too! So doesn't it make sense that I can call out on comms "Everyone burn up!" when I'm leading a nanosquad?

This has little to do with my topic, because I want to have a choice how I view my ship and not bind everyone from rookie to veteran to a single view as it currently is. People play EVE because it has many ships and with it many choices. They would not play it if it had only one choice of a ship no matter how cool looking it was or how awesome it flies. In short, people like getting choices.

You tell your fleet to "burn up"? I usually let everyone fly their ship the way they like, because each has their role and as such does the pilot need to make the decision for himself on how to manoeuvre it. They are not as stupid as my drones. I rather tell them to align, to warp, to jump, to attack or to get out of a fight. There is no proper formation flight in EVE and every ship ends up in slightly different positions. Only if I wanted to perform a ballet dance or some synchronized flight show might I tell my fleet which direction to fly.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2012-04-17 23:52:52 UTC
Beat General wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Beat General wrote:
It doesn't really change anything, besides the fact that the game will be a bit more realistic.

Hehe, true. It would certainly make comms more interesting.

"He's 300k above the gate."

"Wait, which way is up?."

"YOU'RE WARPING TO THE WRONG BM"

"Oh shi...."


I see what you are saying...

But the ships will not will change their "bank"

Only their "pitch" would be affected... To keep people from becoming confused.


Refer to this picture for example: http://ministryoftype.co.uk/images/files/pitch-yaw-bank-iphone.jpg

the whoel reason, even in RL, that its been agreed upon that ALL solar systems have a designated XYZ axis, si ebcause navigation relative to ships would be sporadic and impossibel if EVERYOEN didnt have the exact same corrdinates.

and expaning on that, orientation with these preset coordinates is easier when positive XYZ coords are ALWAYS up, therefore the solar-plane that you fly on...
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#35 - 2012-04-18 00:40:50 UTC
Because you don't have a ship in space, you have a dot in space. Your computer processes the current orientations based on change in location. Is why we see ships landing at funny angles. When it enters grid, no orientation is known, so it just graphically points it. It tilts based on whether it is turning or not, I like to think ventral directional thrusters. To have an actual orientation means that the server would actually need to track and transmit x/y/z rotations, and that means lag. Easier to just have dot is here, dot was here.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Whitehound
#36 - 2012-04-18 00:56:57 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:
Because you don't have a ship in space, you have a dot in space. Your computer processes the current orientations based on change in location. Is why we see ships landing at funny angles. When it enters grid, no orientation is known, so it just graphically points it. It tilts based on whether it is turning or not, I like to think ventral directional thrusters. To have an actual orientation means that the server would actually need to track and transmit x/y/z rotations, and that means lag. Easier to just have dot is here, dot was here.

This has little to do with the topic. The client is able to render a ship, to give it a direction and to render the space around it. You do not see your ship pointing into funny or random directions.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-04-18 02:58:21 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:

This has little to do with the topic. The client is able to render a ship, to give it a direction and to render the space around it. You do not see your ship pointing into funny or random directions.


[quote]Why is that the game always puts me on a plane when it is a 3D space game? My ships always roll so that they stand vertically on the plane of the solar system. Why do we need this again?

Can we get rid of it?


Is exactly the topic, those are the OP words you posted were they not? The reason is that there is no orientation, plain and simple. Yes, the client gives it direction, but that is entirely based on how it moves. Just watch undock, your ship does a quick spin if you have a fast loading computer. It plays connect the dots, it points it along the plane from your previous path, if there is a change in rads so to speak, you tilt. Since this is done server, having a roll or the like in movements would be wierd. I might see myself rolled on the side, but everybody else would be vertical since my system wouldn't have that detail. Now I want to do a test though. Have people sitting at complete stops, a fair while so no drifting, then warp to them. See if what I see is the same as theirs....

The only way first person could work, and albiet this would be cool is the standard having camera hardpoint on a ship just to get a more scaled view of combat, that I would like. Disadvantage is the texture level possibly.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Whitehound
#38 - 2012-04-18 10:04:37 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:
Is exactly the topic, those are the OP words you posted were they not? The reason is that there is no orientation, plain and simple. Yes, the client gives it direction, but that is entirely based on how it moves. Just watch undock, your ship does a quick spin if you have a fast loading computer. It plays connect the dots, it points it along the plane from your previous path, if there is a change in rads so to speak, you tilt. Since this is done server, having a roll or the like in movements would be wierd. I might see myself rolled on the side, but everybody else would be vertical since my system wouldn't have that detail. Now I want to do a test though. Have people sitting at complete stops, a fair while so no drifting, then warp to them. See if what I see is the same as theirs....

The only way first person could work, and albiet this would be cool is the standard having camera hardpoint on a ship just to get a more scaled view of combat, that I would like. Disadvantage is the texture level possibly.

Sure, if you want to put it like this, but I would say that you are only describing the inner mechanics and not that you are arguing against (or for) the idea.

I do not see the texture level as an issue. You should still be able to zoom in and out. And you can specify LOD and texture quality over the game's settings. If it puts more stress on the graphics card then will people tend to wanting it as long as they can switch back. I am not saying to get rid of the current view, but to give us an alternative.

By the way and because I have mixed it into the discussion earlier, how the ships behave with regards to roll, pitch and bank could be made a trade of the races.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Halete
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2012-04-18 11:43:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Halete
Down with this sort of thing.

...

To elaborate on that, just see all the points people have already raised. I can think of plenty of pop culture examples that are guilty of the same thing - but it's aesthetic and works and for all conventions regarding navigation makes sense.

"To know the true path, but yet, to never follow it. That is possibly the gravest sin" - The Scriptures, Book of Missions 13:21

Beat General
Doomheim
#40 - 2012-04-18 12:11:59 UTC
Like 80% of the people in this thread missed the original idea completely.

Then made up their own version of it.

Lol.
Previous page123Next page