These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

End the 0 damage ship bumping mechanic

First post
Author
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-12-18 20:53:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
The lamest mechanic in Eve, as far I am concerned, is 0 damage ship bumping. It is time for this stupid mechanic to end. When a frigate hits a Titan at full speed, it should look like a bug hitting the windshield of a train: splat. The frigate pops and the Titan has a scratch on the paint job.

Already a thread on collision damage so let's talk about conservation of momentum; momentum before = momentum after or p1=p2, where p=mv; momentum equals mass times velocity
[Archiving: Collisions should involve damage to the colliding ships. A frigate hits a battleship at 3km/s straight on and bounces off, both the frigate and the battleship should incur 3k damage to kinetic damage. A collision of the same ships at 300 m/s should yield 300 damage to each. The damage calculation could take into account the masses and changes in velocities of each object involved in the collision. Since it gets a little complicated in high sec with Concording, kill rights, and pve ganking, etc, collisions in high sec could continue to have 0 damage for players without aggression. Also, collisions with asteroids, stargates, and stations can continue to have zero damage until mechanics are put into place to avoid warping inside a station or avoiding collisions with stationary, non-combat objects.]

The change in velocity of an object must follow the conservation of momentum. m1v1 + m2v2 = m1v3 + m2v4 when v4=0 becomes change in v1 = m2/m1 * v2 which is to say that if all of ship B's momentum is transferred to ship A and ship B ends at rest then ship A changes its velocity only by the ratio of masses of Ship B divided by Ship A times the initial velocity of Ship B.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Clansworth
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2 - 2013-12-18 20:58:46 UTC
I'm sure CCP has long thought about this, and probably wanted it even at the earliest beginnings of EvE. The problem is, there is no collision avoidance mechanisms in eve, so there would be far to many incidental damage problems. Undock in a damaged ship from a busy station and you're likely not to survive.

Years ago, collisions were much more problematic (everything generated a collision - cans, billboards, etc). They could have solved it one of two ways. The hard way was to have route management collision avoidance. The other was to remove collision from most in-space objects... they chose the easy way. In a game where the servers are already crying when a bunch of ships are on the same grid, calculating collision avoidance methods would bring it to a stand-still.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-12-18 21:45:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Clansworth wrote:
I'm sure CCP has long thought about this, and probably wanted it even at the earliest beginnings of EvE. The problem is, there is no collision avoidance mechanisms in eve, so there would be far to many incidental damage problems. Undock in a damaged ship from a busy station and you're likely not to survive.

Years ago, collisions were much more problematic (everything generated a collision - cans, billboards, etc). They could have solved it one of two ways. The hard way was to have route management collision avoidance. The other was to remove collision from most in-space objects... they chose the easy way. In a game where the servers are already crying when a bunch of ships are on the same grid, calculating collision avoidance methods would bring it to a stand-still.


Collision avoidance is a great idea too, but damage for collisions is a must so that we can end the 0 damage bumping tactics which are an embarrassment by their sheer stupidity to Eve Online. The local machines can handle the computational work, instead of the servers.

Where an object appears to be on a collision course, if the collision safety is switched on, the ship will simply change direction to least amount possible to minimize the collision speed. Larger ships may opt to leave the system off knowing that the impact of smaller ships will not affect them much damage wise and will result in the popping of the smaller ship.

The warp mechanic can include a little change to remove all points for dropping out of warp which result in a collision, if the system is on. The system could have a toggle for being engaged for warp, for normal movement, for neither, or for both.

The damage may encourage battleships "bowling" or ramming, but with their lower speeds it would not be as effective.

Maybe CCP has thought of this like they have thought of poses, which subject is still getting flogged for the longest time, but perhaps they don't realize how much this mechanic hurts their game in sheer stupidity. Computers have evolved enough to handle these calculations quite easily and it is about time for damage from collisions. Intentionally ramming a ship should have substantial consequences on both sides.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2013-12-18 22:02:07 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Computers have evolved enough to handle these calculations quite easily and it is about time for damage from collisions. Intentionally ramming a ship should have substantial consequences on both sides.

You're still asking CCP to add more strain to the servers. Servers which already have problems keeping up with their current load.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#5 - 2013-12-18 22:03:54 UTC
There's already a topic on this Andy. Here.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#6 - 2013-12-18 22:05:57 UTC
Quote:
Collision avoidance is a great idea too, but damage for collisions is a must so that we can end the 0 damage bumping tactics which are an embarrassment to Eve in their stupidity. The local machines can handle the computational work, instead of the servers.


1a. Since you made an exception for bumping not causing damage without aggression the "bumping tactics" used will not be affected by your change.
1b. If you include a new rule set that causes aggression when bumped a certain number of times then gankers will use it to their advantage to blow up people.

2. To ensure the integrity of a game you NEVER let local computers handle anything "sensitive" aside from basic input and output (see: aggression rules, damage calculations, location in space, etc) for obvious reasons.
And no matter how illegal you make it, or the amount of security you install into a client, or how many times you ban... people WILL break into the code and use it to their advantage (because that much of an advantage over others is too tempting to ignore).
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
#7 - 2013-12-18 22:08:24 UTC
Everyone undocking from jita gets concorded

Nice mechanic Big smile
Grenn Putubi
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2013-12-18 22:24:56 UTC
I don't mind 0 damage from collisions as much as I do the hilarity of the current bumping mechanics.

A 1mil kg frigate should not be able to bounce a 100+mil kg battleship the way they can. It's like throwing a can of soup at a car...it's not gonna move it...

If you insist on damage being a factor though I'd suggest some sort of threshold for the damage to be applied. Say if a ship is going more than 200% of it's base max velocity (ie max speed with an AB or MWD going) you take damage according to how much faster than your base max velocity you're traveling. That way damage from bumping couldn't occur if you're not fit with a prop mod and have it turned on. You'd probably have to account for undocking in some way, not many ships undock at +200% max speed, but I can think of a few that do so there'd have to be considerations made for that. Sure accidental bump damage could still occur, but it would be a consequence of not paying attention while you've got your prop mod turned on. Don't use Approach and your chances of taking collision damage are almost nil with a threshold like that.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2013-12-18 22:30:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Did you lose your crane to some good bumping?

BTW noticing a trend....

Andy loses ship to a super cynoing in...he posts alot about nerfing cynos.
Andy loses a crane to bumping...now an anti-bumping thread.

This last one is almost as funny as the thread begging for the removal of warp core stabilizers.

Another thing, removing bumping will make fitting epithals very simple, and rather hard to catch in low sec.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-12-18 22:47:17 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Did you lose your crane to some good bumping?

To be fair, it was a bustard.
Spl4sh
Coherent Light
#11 - 2013-12-18 23:07:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Spl4sh
bumping mechanism idea moved to a different thread where it prolly fits better...
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2013-12-18 23:19:45 UTC
So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2013-12-18 23:39:01 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense?


So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-12-18 23:46:05 UTC
Mag's wrote:
There's already a topic on this Andy. Here.

Good point. I didn't see that. So let's send this thread the other way then regarding the momentum equation and the effects of bumping, which still naturally follows the title of this thtread. Let the other thread discuss the damage aspect, which I like.

Let's talk about using the good old conservation of momentum equation m*v = m*v to govern the effects of bumping. Mass of frigate is 1 million kg. Mass of carrier is 1.1 bil kg. So the maximum change in velocity is less than 1/1000, so a collision at 4000 m/s will only slow the carrier down by 4 m/s.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-12-19 00:16:24 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense?


So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why.

Because as a Physicist, it really bothers me that the Laws of Momentum (motion) and of Kinetic Energy (damage) are so blatantly violated in the 0 damage bumping mechanism. I can look past a lot of technology in Science Fiction, but technology cannot change the fundamental laws of Physics. At the very least, we should honor the Law of Momentum.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Miasmos
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-12-19 00:41:12 UTC
Just remove the collision mechanism. Come up with a better pvp solution to replace it.

+ server load lessened
+ unimmersive force fields off objects

-/+ ships stacking visually, not a downgrade from the clusterballs of today though
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2013-12-19 00:58:47 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense?


So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why.

Because as a Physicist, it really bothers me that the Laws of Momentum (motion) and of Kinetic Energy (damage) are so blatantly violated in the 0 damage bumping mechanism. I can look past a lot of technology in Science Fiction, but technology cannot change the fundamental laws of Physics. At the very least, we should honor the Law of Momentum.



So you want us to slam 1600 plated, MWDing stabbers into literally everything, right?
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#18 - 2013-12-19 01:04:14 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense?


So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why.

Because as a Physicist, it really bothers me that the Laws of Momentum (motion) and of Kinetic Energy (damage) are so blatantly violated in the 0 damage bumping mechanism. I can look past a lot of technology in Science Fiction, but technology cannot change the fundamental laws of Physics. At the very least, we should honor the Law of Momentum.



So you want us to slam 1600 plated, MWDing stabbers into literally everything, right?

100mn 1600 plated vagabonds everywhere.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#19 - 2013-12-19 01:27:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Astroniomix wrote:

100mn 1600 plated vagabonds everywhere.

Crap, you are right about the MWD mechanic messing it all up with the MWD blowing up the mass (what happened to the Conservation of Mass, anyone?). No wonder CCP turns their head when they see issues like the violation of Conservation of Momentum. Before they know it many of their other mechanics become so obviously bad. And if you are in a mini-warp using the MWD, then collision should be impossible. Probably the easiest way to deal with MWD is to make the ship a ghost to collisions. Could ships stack up that way? Yes, yes, they could, but they are in micro-warp, so that seems reasonable enough.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Dato Koppla
Spaghetti Militia
#20 - 2013-12-19 01:48:11 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense?


So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why.

Because as a Physicist, it really bothers me that the Laws of Momentum (motion) and of Kinetic Energy (damage) are so blatantly violated in the 0 damage bumping mechanism. I can look past a lot of technology in Science Fiction, but technology cannot change the fundamental laws of Physics. At the very least, we should honor the Law of Momentum.


Okay now I know you're trolling. If you're looking for mechanics accurate to real science, don't play online games and expect to get it. I'm pretty sure Eve is riddled with scientific inaccuracies, so I highly doubt you want this particular mechanic changed because of
"Laws of Momentum and Kinetic Energy"
12Next page