These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Shooting through objects

Author
Dragon Outlaw
Rogue Fleet
#1 - 2012-05-11 12:15:43 UTC
I`m sure this was asked or proposed before but...


What would be the impact in the game if CCP would remove the ability to shoot through objects (roids, stations, ships, etc...)? Would it be a good thing? Just imagine in a large fleet fight, your gun would not be able to shoot an hostile ship just because one of your budies got in the way. You would keep lock but your gun would loose a cicle (your module could flash yellow when that happens).

Comments?
Xhaiden Ora
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-05-11 12:28:33 UTC
Dragon Outlaw wrote:
What would be the impact in the game if CCP would remove the ability to shoot through objects (roids, stations, ships, etc...)? Would it be a good thing? Just imagine in a large fleet fight, your gun would not be able to shoot an hostile ship just because one of your budies got in the way. You would keep lock but your gun would loose a cicle (your module could flash yellow when that happens).


Objects would make things more interesting from a strategic perspective but I suspect would take a lot of work on the programming side of things to impliment in the engine.

Ships, however, when it comes to EVE you always have to think of suggestions in terms of "What would I do with this if I were a complete ****?" For example: If I were a complete ****, I would block other ship's turrets intentionally in high sec without flagging myself for pvp. Thus screwing up their mission running or their attempts to fight back against my hot drop suicide gank gang.

Im Super Gay
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-05-11 12:40:22 UTC
Dragon Outlaw wrote:
I`m sure this was asked or proposed before but...


What would be the impact in the game if CCP would remove the ability to shoot through objects (roids, stations, ships, etc...)? Would it be a good thing? Just imagine in a large fleet fight, your gun would not be able to shoot an hostile ship just because one of your budies got in the way. You would keep lock but your gun would loose a cicle (your module could flash yellow when that happens).

Comments?


I played perpetuum for a bit, its an mmo similar to eve but with robots on islands instead of ships in space. In perpetuum you needed direct line of sight to hit your target with guns, so you couldn't shoot through hills, etc, x cept for missiles, which due to an arced flight path could be lobbed over hills.

Although this system worked well with perpetuum, it wouldn't work well with eve because there's too many objects that you can fly through, so in theory someone could fly inside or partially inside an object and be mmune from attack. Think moons and planets, you can fly through them at sub warp speeds. Also the edges of colliadable objects don't match up with t he edge you bump off of. Sometimes you can be partially inside a station before bumping off of it and other times you can be several km fro the edge of the station before bumping off of it.

While I agree that its more realistic, the amount of work ccp would have to do to make objects one up with their bumping boundaries isn't worth it, also I don't think anyone wants to friendly fire their capital/supercap ships because the guy they're shooting at is orbiting tightly around the cap/supercap.
Xhaiden Ora
Doomheim
#4 - 2012-05-11 12:57:11 UTC
Im Super Gay wrote:
[quote=Dragon Outlaw]IWhile I agree that its more realistic, the amount of work ccp would have to do to make objects one up with their bumping boundaries isn't worth it, also I don't think anyone wants to friendly fire their capital/supercap ships because the guy they're shooting at is orbiting tightly around the cap/supercap.


Yes, implimenting truely accurate collision detection and line of sight would be a fair undertaking and I imagine would be a big increase in server load and data being sent to and from the client.
Dragon Outlaw
Rogue Fleet
#5 - 2012-05-11 13:30:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Dragon Outlaw
Yeah...totally forgot about the object boundary issue that would need to be fixed 1st.

I guess the reason why this has not been done yet is the high potential that this would be a severe strain on the servers and would generate more lag (like both of you pointed out).

So I guess we are going to have to wait for the technology evolution to "get there". I just cant wait for this though. Just imagine large fleet fights where each opposing forces would need to take this into consideration. The battlefield would become a "sum" of many smaller battles... on the same grid. FCs would probably need to focus more on fleet deployment and spread their fleet`s DPS.

In my opinion, this would make large Fleet fights WAY more fun and more challenging on the tactical aspect. PvP fights around belts and structures would also find a new dynamic and be more interesting.
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-05-11 14:42:45 UTC
Personally I would very much like that. Also ships should be able to block incoming fire. As in, a missile should not fly through one ship and hit another.

I particularly liked this mechanic as it was in Pirates of the Burning Sea, a sanboxy MMO in many ways similar to EVE. Not only did you need line of sight to target, but the target could hide behind both friendlies and other enemies. For example a tiny xebec boat was very hard to deal with because it would constantly keep zig-zagging between your own fleetmates, and friendlies would constantly get in the way of your fire. Similarly a beat-up ship could be shielded by a friendly, for a while I played a Freetrader, and sailed in a huge hull that basically acted as a mobile brick wall that people could duck behind.

But as it applies to EVE, I'm afraid it might be too difficult to implement. Also, EVE has so many other problems that are far, far more serious, so that adding this stuff is probably just not cost-effective.

In short, as much as I would love to see this, it probably shouldn't be a priority when so much of the game is downright broken.
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#7 - 2012-05-11 19:29:49 UTC
This idea was originally proposed in 2006. At the time the devs declined as it would (at the time) take a whopping fifteen lines of code be changed, since there actually already was a check, but it was just for missiles and drones, and did not effect if hits were taking place.
Im Super Gay
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-05-11 22:50:07 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
This idea was originally proposed in 2006. At the time the devs declined as it would (at the time) take a whopping fifteen lines of code be changed, since there actually already was a check, but it was just for missiles and drones, and did not effect if hits were taking place.

To implement los. However to make the los accurate it would be a lot of effort on the part of ccp to match up invisible boundaries with visible boundaries.

Also, the issue of friendly fire arises, which would be nearly impossible for a player to prevent with the current shooting mechanics.
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#9 - 2012-05-11 23:38:29 UTC
Im Super Gay wrote:

To implement los. However to make the los accurate it would be a lot of effort on the part of ccp to match up invisible boundaries with visible boundaries.

Also, the issue of friendly fire arises, which would be nearly impossible for a player to prevent with the current shooting mechanics.



LOL like removing the 15km boarder around ten yard rocks in missions that are only there to make mission runners lose ships if they speed tank? Those boundary issues? The ones they swear their fixing, honest?:

And friendly fire would be a good thing. You know, making players actually maneuver their ships, and use tactics beyond 'We have seventy guys blobbing the gate'.
Apolion
Light-year Enterprises
#10 - 2012-06-20 04:49:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Apolion
If there is any one thing that would improve game play LOS would be it. It would help to mitigate Blobs as blobbing players would be easily in danger of firing on friendlies or simply lose DPS waiting to get a clear shot again.

For those that think that everything is Server side. Guess again. All graphic occlusion which is much more complex is already being handled by the client. That’s why we don’t see through other ships. (I’m pretty sure bumping is handled client side but this is a guess) the graphics engine renders things properly, a test to see if LOS is true is not a huge endeavor for the client.

Yes there is a boundary that doesn’t correspond perfectly to the shape of stations and roids but this can be dealt with by simply "stating" that stations / ships have a shield that is round and extends beyond the physical structure boundary. With respect to roids they could set the boundary as a simple shape that can be enveloped inside of the rock. If a laser comes very close to the edge it should be able to punch through since its less material.

In reality when we have such discussions, opining about what is or isn’t Server side /client side is simply a decision that CCP chooses to make and will always be weighed into the decisions they make. They are the true definers of the cost involved in implementing features.

Where we can be useful is in giving our opinion on what a feature can bring to the game. Will LOS be more fun or less? Does it solve problems or create them? Are the problems we can foresee something we feel is unacceptable. The coding problem really isn’t for us to even consider since we don’t have the knowledge of the resources available to CCP.

There are certain aspects of EVE that are in need of work. That’s why CCP entertains these forums so they can gage better what should be priorities. Since this is an evolving game with the end goal to make possible any SCI-FI imaginable condition it stand to reason that LOS will be implemented at some time. There will always be a difference in opinion in what bothers one player from another. Some problems will affect you and not me so our priorities will be different but if a feature will add to the "fun Factor" let’s get it presented considered on its merits and help CCP gage its worth. We all have other feature that we would prefer to have first. Ok...

The philosophy I prefer to use; what keeps me reading the forum and playing the game is, what has been stated as the goal of this game”
Aurelius Valentius
Valentius Corporation
#11 - 2012-06-20 05:00:24 UTC
"Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1!"
"Never tell me the odds." Blink
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2012-06-20 07:53:39 UTC
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:
Im Super Gay wrote:

To implement los. However to make the los accurate it would be a lot of effort on the part of ccp to match up invisible boundaries with visible boundaries.

Also, the issue of friendly fire arises, which would be nearly impossible for a player to prevent with the current shooting mechanics.



LOL like removing the 15km boarder around ten yard rocks in missions that are only there to make mission runners lose ships if they speed tank? Those boundary issues? The ones they swear their fixing, honest?:

And friendly fire would be a good thing. You know, making players actually maneuver their ships, and use tactics beyond 'We have seventy guys blobbing the gate'.



And it would make POS shooting with subcaps virtually impossible. It'd be significantly harder with caps too.