These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Collision Damage
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#181 - 2013-12-24 18:23:58 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

If there is to be damage, it should be applied fairly and equally to all ships based on the masses and velocities involved in each collision .. or not at all.

I also think ships shouldn't collide the way they do without damaging each other. It's impractical to introduce global collision damage so they shouldn't be colliding. Maybe ships in collision trajectory should have their speed lowered automatically? Make it so only the smaller ships reduce their speed so people don't abuse this feature? Make it available only in highsec and in low/nullsec full collision damage is applied? There would still be the who aggressed who problem.

I already listed several ways to deal with global collision damage. Are there any issues with fairness with any of those points?

I can tell you right now that there is definitely an issue of fairness with a ramming module which deals more damage to the other ship than to its own ship. If damage is to be done, it should be done according to the amount of kinetic energy transferred to it which will come from any losses to kinetic energy and non-elastic momentum equations.

My collision avoidance system is based on the ship's computer deciding when the ship must change the velocity in order to minimize any collisions. Being forced on in high sec, the ship's computer will prevent any manual flying directions which move the ship into the path of another player or which get in the way of the undock channels. Outside of high sec, the system may be turned off. It might be linked to the existing safety system.

Added:
I should probably add that if every ship has the collision avoidance systems on (turning it off in high sec would be considered an exploit), and undocking is metered according to ship max speed with undocks for slower ships and other undocks for faster ones, then there should be very little or no collision damage in high sec and therefore Concord may ignore any collision damage.

Why is it unfair? Think about it gameplay-wise, remember this is not a simulator so, although a considerable degree of realism is desirable, gameplay should always come before it. If a player dedicates a mid slot for such a module and has to use his ability to make it effective then why should he take the same amount of damage? Think about a battering ram. It does not receive the same amount of damage as the rammed object because it's fit for this purpose.

Also, sorry I didn't saw your proposed idea for the agression timer. Who get's a criminal flag in a collision, be it in high or lowsec? I like the idea of different undocks for different ship sizes. It could be cool, even if not implemented with the purpose of fixing a possible collision problem.

Just because a realistic idea is proposed, like adhering to one of the most basic laws of physics, doesn't justify the cry against simulating. Some basic realism really increases the immersion and power of the universe and her machines.

My idea about aggression would be that collision damage is not considered at all for purposes of aggression or timers. No flags.

I do agree that multiple undocks, and perhaps even an option to see the space around the station and choose an undock would be awesome! Station camping gets a little bit more complicated.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#182 - 2013-12-24 18:41:18 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
Silent Rambo wrote:

It really isn't that complicated, and honestly pretty obvious but ill explain is detail:

If both ships are at 5% or under of their own shield it makes them able to collide with other objects with less then 5% of that objects shield. If I have a interceptor at 3% of its own shields (So maybe 50hp or something), and a carrier at 1% of its own shield (lets estimate1000hp), they would be able to collide.

The whole basis of the idea is that its a ship by ship basis that would opt them into being able to collide. A ship with 6% of its own shields collides with a ship with 1% of its own shields, them don't collide. Its a simple AND operation. here is a simple sudo code representation:

If ((shieldHp < totalShieldHp *.05) AND (otherShieldHp < otherShipShieldHP * .05)) {
applyCollitionDamage(myShip, otherShip);
} else {
justBump(myShip, otherShip);
}

This gives a buffer zone for the constant repairing of a ships shields, and makes it possible for a ship even with minuscule amount of total shields to still be able to collide with other ships in the same situation. Collision damage would be applied to a ship based on the mass and traversal velocity of the ship it hits. A carrier with a large amount of mass, not moving wont take extensive damage from a frigate colliding with it at high speed, however the frigate should be destroyed. These damage values can be tweaked based on other factors, the overall idea seems pretty sound to me though.

I suggested that already, dude. The problem with this is that there is still no way to determine who get's a criminal flag for damaging someone else by ramming his own ship towards another. It could also result in lots of accidental damage in a big fleet.

This.

It sounds like a random penalty for being in the wrong circumstances, not a mechanic that would improve gameplay by offering a desperate pilot the opportunity to die in a blaze of glory.
Not even sure the desperate blaze of glory part would be balanced to begin with.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#183 - 2013-12-24 20:29:34 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
...
Added:
I should probably add that if every ship has the collision avoidance systems on (turning it off in high sec would be considered an exploit), and undocking is metered according to ship max speed with undocks for slower ships and other undocks for faster ones, then there should be very little or no collision damage in high sec and therefore Concord may ignore any collision damage.

Nag, this would be the system you mentioned would use the ship's own propulsion to avoid collisions where damage is applied globally (without mods). It could be set to work so that it protected fleet work, so that even if it was turned off, it would still avoid collisions with anyone in fleet or with anyone who is blue, depending on the pilot's desire. This way the ship could do all the calculations to avoid collisions, including orbits, alignment, and even warp-ins, where the ship's computer calculates the warp-in point and checks with the server to see if that space is clear enough to avoid collisions. If so, the space is reserved for the warp. If not, a new point is chosen closest to the original but far enough to be clear of the area reserved. Ships (all if the system is on, or blue and purple if the system is off) on-grid and their current flight vectors reserve space against warp-ins to avoid collisions when dropping out of warp. It may sound a little complicated by it is child's play for computers.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Alundil
Rolled Out
#184 - 2013-12-24 20:55:05 UTC
Electrique Wizard wrote:
You guys are thinking of it wrong.

Think about an active highslot module, that when activated enables you to damage (and be damaged) by bumping.

I, for one, want a True Sansha Hull Penetration Ram fitted to my ship.

With some vague phallic shape no doubt.

Oh wait...... The art for this has already been implemented.

I give you the Avatar. The largest ramming phalli.......I mean "hull" ever seen in new eden.

I'm right behind you
Alundil
Rolled Out
#185 - 2013-12-24 21:01:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Alundil
Mike White wrote:
...traffic cops are too busy for small accidents



Then groups will literally 'bump to death' a ship with concord oblivious to that fact up to the final blow. It would be the Eve equivalent of 'Death by a thousand cuts'.

I'm right behind you
Silent Rambo
Orion Positronics
#186 - 2013-12-24 21:02:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Silent Rambo
Nag'o wrote:
The problem with this is that there is still no way to determine who get's a criminal flag for damaging someone else by ramming his own ship towards another. It could also result in lots of accidental damage in a big fleet.


First one is a tough issue, but we can think of ways to handle it. How about the ship that had the faster velocity when the collision occurred gets the criminal flag/sec status hit? This basically guarantees it is the person who collided with the other person on purpose, since a faster ship would be able to get away from an incoming suicide ship, or just actually flew there ship so it wouldn't collide with another ship. Remember damage is done based on radial velocity so if they are going close a 0 radial velocity the damage will be very minimal, or potentially almost nothing. Just means people will actually have to pay attention to the game just a tiny bit more. Terrible right?

Second one its really not an issue. Anything detrimental to blob warfare I don't see as something negative. Adapt and space your ships out, or take a bunch of damage because your ships are hugging each other.

EDIT: Changed traversal to radial based on this source: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Velocities. Those two always confused me. Just to be clear, radial is how fast they are moving towards or away from you.

Here is a quick sudo equation: (radial velocity * mass of ship A = damage to ship B) you can also say: if(ship A velocity when collision occurs > ship B) ship A is at fault, they had the most control, and could have avoided a collision if they wished.

You really think someone would do that? Just log into EvE and tell lies?
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#187 - 2013-12-25 03:37:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Nag'o
Andy Landen wrote:

My idea about aggression would be that collision damage is not considered at all for purposes of aggression or timers. No flags.

This wouldn't work because, as someone else pointed, it would be easily exploited. As soon as the shields are off you can call all capsuleers in the region to bash any ship to death without consequences.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#188 - 2013-12-25 03:44:48 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
...
Added:
I should probably add that if every ship has the collision avoidance systems on (turning it off in high sec would be considered an exploit), and undocking is metered according to ship max speed with undocks for slower ships and other undocks for faster ones, then there should be very little or no collision damage in high sec and therefore Concord may ignore any collision damage.

Nag, this would be the system you mentioned would use the ship's own propulsion to avoid collisions where damage is applied globally (without mods). It could be set to work so that it protected fleet work, so that even if it was turned off, it would still avoid collisions with anyone in fleet or with anyone who is blue, depending on the pilot's desire. This way the ship could do all the calculations to avoid collisions, including orbits, alignment, and even warp-ins, where the ship's computer calculates the warp-in point and checks with the server to see if that space is clear enough to avoid collisions. If so, the space is reserved for the warp. If not, a new point is chosen closest to the original but far enough to be clear of the area reserved. Ships (all if the system is on, or blue and purple if the system is off) on-grid and their current flight vectors reserve space against warp-ins to avoid collisions when dropping out of warp. It may sound a little complicated by it is child's play for computers.

It is complicated, and I don't think that is such a child's play when it involves thousands of players in the same grid. I don't know if my idea is good. I just hate to see a Titan spining around like a leaf in the water when a cruiser touches it (and I really mean touch it, not bump it at 10km/s, a single aproach with no propusion modules activated can provoke that). It totally breaks the immersion.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#189 - 2013-12-25 03:57:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Nag'o
Silent Rambo wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
The problem with this is that there is still no way to determine who get's a criminal flag for damaging someone else by ramming his own ship towards another. It could also result in lots of accidental damage in a big fleet.


First one is a tough issue, but we can think of ways to handle it. How about the ship that had the faster velocity when the collision occurred gets the criminal flag/sec status hit? This basically guarantees it is the person who collided with the other person on purpose, since a faster ship would be able to get away from an incoming suicide ship, or just actually flew there ship so it wouldn't collide with another ship. Remember damage is done based on radial velocity so if they are going close a 0 radial velocity the damage will be very minimal, or potentially almost nothing. Just means people will actually have to pay attention to the game just a tiny bit more. Terrible right?

Second one its really not an issue. Anything detrimental to blob warfare I don't see as something negative. Adapt and space your ships out, or take a bunch of damage because your ships are hugging each other.

EDIT: Changed traversal to radial based on this source: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Velocities. Those two always confused me. Just to be clear, radial is how fast they are moving towards or away from you.

Here is a quick sudo equation: (radial velocity * mass of ship A = damage to ship B) you can also say: if(ship A velocity when collision occurs > ship B) ship A is at fault, they had the most control, and could have avoided a collision if they wished.

But then let's say you're in an armor fleet, a bomber fleet just popped all of your fleetmates shields and the FC screams: "align to planet X and turn the MWD on". No, he wouldn't be able to do that, because he knows that would turn his fleet into a ball of ditorted metal due to all accidental collisions. He would be forced to keep the fleet in it's current state, vulnerable to another bomb salvo.
This example is to show that it's not just a matter of having a bit more of attention. A radical change like that would force ppl to rethink even fleet doctrines just to avoid accidental collisions.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#190 - 2013-12-25 07:50:30 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:

My idea about aggression would be that collision damage is not considered at all for purposes of aggression or timers. No flags.

This wouldn't work because, as someone else pointed, it would be easily exploited. As soon as the shields are off you can call all capsuleers in the region to bash any ship to death without consequences.

I believe that collision damage should apply with shields up to 100% and down to 0% The naturally high kinetic resists on shields do help mitigate some of that damage though. A nice positive for shield tankers. Would there be consequences to those who want to collide with a particular target? Under my ideas, of course there would be consequences. In the first place, every ship would take damage according to the masses and velocities. In the second place, they would only be able to do it outside of high sec, because Concord would force all ships to have their collision avoidance systems "on" while they were in high sec under pain of being banned for an exploit. In high sec, no ship would allow any path which resulted in the possibility of a future collision. Each ship would automatically choose the closest path to the one desired which assured there would be no collision. It would simply be impossible to exploit in high sec due to the collision avoidance system.

"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
#191 - 2013-12-25 07:58:07 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
... the FC screams: "align to planet X and turn the MWD on". No, he wouldn't be able to do that, because he knows that would turn his fleet into a ball of ditorted metal due to all accidental collisions. He would be forced to keep the fleet in it's current state, vulnerable to another bomb salvo.
This example is to show that it's not just a matter of having a bit more of attention. A radical change like that would force ppl to rethink even fleet doctrines just to avoid accidental collisions.

My collision avoidance system would avoid collisions with fellow fleet mates or with blues exceeding standings that you specify, even when set off for everyone else. When the FC calls to align to planet "x", the collision avoidance system would calculate the fastest way to got away from the others in fleet enough and align for complete avoidance of all collisions. Given sufficient distance, all ships are flying practically parallel lines and therefore in non-intercepting flight paths. For ships that are faster, the ship will calculate the route which frees them from any intercept paths and brings them back into alignment in the shortest possible time.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Pipa Porto
#192 - 2013-12-25 22:50:23 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
I believe that collision damage should apply with shields up to 100% and down to 0% The naturally high kinetic resists on shields do help mitigate some of that damage though. A nice positive for shield tankers. Would there be consequences to those who want to collide with a particular target? Under my ideas, of course there would be consequences. In the first place, every ship would take damage according to the masses and velocities. In the second place, they would only be able to do it outside of high sec, because Concord would force all ships to have their collision avoidance systems "on" while they were in high sec under pain of being banned for an exploit. In high sec, no ship would allow any path which resulted in the possibility of a future collision. Each ship would automatically choose the closest path to the one desired which assured there would be no collision. It would simply be impossible to exploit in high sec due to the collision avoidance system.



Enjoy never leaving Jita.

Why can't I pilot my ship in HS like I can everywhere else? Manual piloting is an incredibly important part of the game.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#193 - 2013-12-25 22:50:40 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nag'o wrote:
... the FC screams: "align to planet X and turn the MWD on". No, he wouldn't be able to do that, because he knows that would turn his fleet into a ball of ditorted metal due to all accidental collisions. He would be forced to keep the fleet in it's current state, vulnerable to another bomb salvo.
This example is to show that it's not just a matter of having a bit more of attention. A radical change like that would force ppl to rethink even fleet doctrines just to avoid accidental collisions.

My collision avoidance system would avoid collisions with fellow fleet mates or with blues exceeding standings that you specify, even when set off for everyone else. When the FC calls to align to planet "x", the collision avoidance system would calculate the fastest way to got away from the others in fleet enough and align for complete avoidance of all collisions. Given sufficient distance, all ships are flying practically parallel lines and therefore in non-intercepting flight paths. For ships that are faster, the ship will calculate the route which frees them from any intercept paths and brings them back into alignment in the shortest possible time.

I like the idea of a "light" collision avoidance system that prevents accidental bumpings but I cannot see a global collision damage system in EvE. It could happen, but it's just too much of a radical change and I honestly don't think it's much of an improvement. Big collisions maybe could inflict damage, small bumps no... but then there must be some kind of agression flagging. How would you determine if the MWD'ing cruiser was agressing the battlecruiser that just stopped in front of it, or if it was a tactic from the battlecruiser pilot to hold the other ship? A ramming module could solve that, but I already got you don't like this idea. Tbh, a fix of the balloon physics would do the trick for me. This ramming module would be just a very nice bonus.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#194 - 2013-12-25 23:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Nag'o wrote:

I like the idea of a "light" collision avoidance system that prevents accidental bumpings but I cannot see a global collision damage system in EvE. It could happen, but it's just too much of a radical change and I honestly don't think it's much of an improvement. Big collisions maybe could inflict damage, small bumps no... but then there must be some kind of agression flagging. How would you determine if the MWD'ing cruiser was agressing the battlecruiser that just stopped in front of it, or if it was a tactic from the battlecruiser pilot to hold the other ship? A ramming module could solve that, but I already got you don't like this idea. Tbh, a fix of the balloon physics would do the trick for me. This ramming module would be just a very nice bonus.

I thought the whole point of this thread was to suggest an impartial collision damage that equally affected everyone. Of course it is a radical change: before there is no collision damage and after there is. What is even more of a change is to allow the same individuals who benefit from collisions currently to have an even stronger advantage after your change. At least the global application maintains fairness and balance by not favoring any particular group.

The idea of damage mitigation has great merit. The size of the shields would mitigate the damage from any collisions according to the following formula: The shield ehp times the momentum times a scaling factor equals the amount of damage ignored (flexed) from the total collision damage. The larger the shields, and the more momentum, the more damage is bounced off and not absorbed.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#195 - 2013-12-26 00:02:51 UTC
One of the major obstacles of a general collision mechanic, is that it allows the aspect of intent to become unclear.

A ramming module using collision damage, or even my ramming device which uses inertial damps as a weapon, both require deliberate acts to arm, and thus can be considered valid causes to receive suspect or criminal flags should damage occur as a result.

Without a clearly defined intent to cause damage to others, being flagged becomes something that can be exploited in a way to attack ships indirectly.

(Set up a ship to be weakened before hand, watch for the hauler you want to gank which was running AFK or on autopilot, then drop the ship in the path of this unintentional steamroller causing it to be flagged for ramming)
If both sides need to have shields below a certain level, have another sacrificial ship toast the target's shields before the collision.

In exchange for one EMP loaded DPS ship, and a noob ship, you can suspect or criminal flag any ship you like, just as long as they aren't paying attention at the right moment.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#196 - 2013-12-26 00:13:37 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
One of the major obstacles of a general collision mechanic, is that it allows the aspect of intent to become unclear.

Where the intent is unclear, let there be no aggression or flags. With collision avoidance systems on in high sec there are no issues there. Low sec gets a little more tricky, as it should, and if anyone is afk flying in low sec, no one is concerned about if collision damage somehow yields an advantage down the road sometime. Especially when shields mitigate some damage according to my proposal above.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#197 - 2013-12-26 14:34:43 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
One of the major obstacles of a general collision mechanic, is that it allows the aspect of intent to become unclear.

Where the intent is unclear, let there be no aggression or flags. With collision avoidance systems on in high sec there are no issues there. Low sec gets a little more tricky, as it should, and if anyone is afk flying in low sec, no one is concerned about if collision damage somehow yields an advantage down the road sometime. Especially when shields mitigate some damage according to my proposal above.

So, clarify please:

Bob has a DST, and he wants his collision avoidance system on, to avoid being hit and likely stopped for his cargo.
Due to the DST's awful align time, anyone wanting to ram him will probably be able to do so, with many ship types.

Does the collision avoidance system still help him, when it is another ship attempting to ram him?
Will his ship take even longer to align, because it is trying to avoid pilots placing themselves in his path?
Will he be even more vulnerable in low and null, with these collision systems?

Do recall, the DST relies on tanking ability combined with inherent warp stability to endure attacks while attempting to leave.
If this allows more DPS to be applied than was previously possible, any ship relying on a tank to buy needed time may become trivialized.
If noone gets flagged when trying to ram Bob, going into low sec will become a worse idea than it was previously for him.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#198 - 2013-12-26 16:26:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nag'o
Andy Landen wrote:

I thought the whole point of this thread was to suggest an impartial collision damage that equally affected everyone. Of course it is a radical change: before there is no collision damage and after there is. What is even more of a change is to allow the same individuals who benefit from collisions currently to have an even stronger advantage after your change. At least the global application maintains fairness and balance by not favoring any particular group.

The idea of damage mitigation has great merit. The size of the shields would mitigate the damage from any collisions according to the following formula: The shield ehp times the momentum times a scaling factor equals the amount of damage ignored (flexed) from the total collision damage. The larger the shields, and the more momentum, the more damage is bounced off and not absorbed.

It won't be much of an advantage if a collision avoidance system is implemented too. Pushing another ship will only be possible through the use of a module, so there will be no more miner bumping or capital bumping other than through aggression. This is quite a drawback for bumpers imo.

I don't know if this is what Nick Narrel meant but a global collision system would be troublesome even if implemented only in lowsec. The gate guns wouldn't react to bumping so someone trying to defend itself from bumpers could be flagged as a criminal instead.

EDIT : it COULD work only in wh/nullsec, since there is no criminal flagging there. But then that's another layer of complexity as a barrier to nullsec entry.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Silent Rambo
Orion Positronics
#199 - 2013-12-26 18:57:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Silent Rambo
Nag'o wrote:

But then let's say you're in an armor fleet, a bomber fleet just popped all of your fleetmates shields and the FC screams: "align to planet X and turn the MWD on". No, he wouldn't be able to do that, because he knows that would turn his fleet into a ball of ditorted metal due to all accidental collisions.


Aligning just points in the direction of the planet. In this example, all the ships would be moving in the same direction, parallel to each other. Parallel means their paths don't cross, which means no collisions. If their ships were spaced out anyway, they wouldn't have to worry as much about bombers in the first place. Deterring blobs further with more interesting game mechanics is not a bad thing.

I've already explained mechanics to assign criminal status as well. Kind of akin to traffic rules. If someone is burning at you when you have no shields, or vice versa, manually get out of the way or suffer the potential consequences.

You really think someone would do that? Just log into EvE and tell lies?
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#200 - 2013-12-26 19:20:38 UTC
Silent Rambo wrote:
Nag'o wrote:

But then let's say you're in an armor fleet, a bomber fleet just popped all of your fleetmates shields and the FC screams: "align to planet X and turn the MWD on". No, he wouldn't be able to do that, because he knows that would turn his fleet into a ball of ditorted metal due to all accidental collisions.


Aligning just points in the direction of the planet. In this example, all the ships would be moving in the same direction, parallel to each other. Parallel means their paths don't cross, which means no collisions. If their ships were spaced out anyway, they wouldn't have to worry as much about bombers in the first place. Deterring blobs further with more interesting game mechanics is not a bad thing.

I've already explained mechanics to assign criminal status as well. Kind of akin to traffic rules. If someone is burning at you when you have no shields, or vice versa, manually get out of the way or suffer the potential consequences.

Space a big fleet members out and logis will have trouble. And you talk like everybody is aligning their ships at the same time, wich doesn't happen, because, you know, humans.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.