These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Druthlen
The Carlisle Group
#201 - 2013-12-26 19:26:04 UTC
Collision damage could work. A math equation that factors in mass and speed. So that a freighter would take almost no damage to a fleet of rifters. But the rifters would insta pop. But if a freighter bumped a non moving rifter neither would take damage because the speed would be below the threshold for the equation to be above 0.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#202 - 2013-12-26 20:13:31 UTC
If collision damage does not come complete with responsible suspect / criminal flagging, then you will have for the first time freighters being used to gank WITH, not just being ganked.

Oh darn.... that barge collided with the freighter.... bring in the logi to rep the freighter back up for the next fun!

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Silent Rambo
Orion Positronics
#203 - 2013-12-26 20:58:17 UTC
Nag'o wrote:

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.


Don't start out as a blob and it wont matter if all the people align at the exact same time. Logi's having maximum ranges means you should bring more logistics for larger fleets that are spaced out. All these arguments are just explaining current strategies and how they wouldn't work after this change, but they aren't strong arguments. Saying you cant change things because people would have to change their habits isn't a good reason to shake up gameplay for the better. Its just an excuse to not have to adapt.

You really think someone would do that? Just log into EvE and tell lies?
Silent Rambo
Orion Positronics
#204 - 2013-12-26 21:02:25 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
If collision damage does not come complete with responsible suspect / criminal flagging, then you will have for the first time freighters being used to gank WITH, not just being ganked.

Oh darn.... that barge collided with the freighter.... bring in the logi to rep the freighter back up for the next fun!


Yeah id be worried about this sort of thing if you could collide into ships with shields still up, but I think almost anyone can agree that wouldn't work for the simple reason of un-dock mechanics.

You really think someone would do that? Just log into EvE and tell lies?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#205 - 2013-12-26 21:53:24 UTC
Silent Rambo wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
If collision damage does not come complete with responsible suspect / criminal flagging, then you will have for the first time freighters being used to gank WITH, not just being ganked.

Oh darn.... that barge collided with the freighter.... bring in the logi to rep the freighter back up for the next fun!


Yeah id be worried about this sort of thing if you could collide into ships with shields still up, but I think almost anyone can agree that wouldn't work for the simple reason of un-dock mechanics.

You can kill the freighter's shields with friendly fire, and being able to toast just the shields on a target lowers the bar for a ganker so they can hit higher sec levels, with less firepower.

Flagging needs to be the deterrent, or this becomes a shortcut for awfulness.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#206 - 2013-12-26 22:45:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nag'o
Silent Rambo wrote:
Nag'o wrote:

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.


Don't start out as a blob and it wont matter if all the people align at the exact same time. Logi's having maximum ranges means you should bring more logistics for larger fleets that are spaced out. All these arguments are just explaining current strategies and how they wouldn't work after this change, but they aren't strong arguments. Saying you cant change things because people would have to change their habits isn't a good reason to shake up gameplay for the better. Its just an excuse to not have to adapt.

It's not a matter of habit, it's a matter of choice. People wouldn't be able to use tight formations as a tactic resource. If you remove a reasonable and common tactic then you're not changing things for the better. And this is not a simple adaptation, introducing a global mechanic for collision damage is a paradigm change. It's not like an extra module or some stats change.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Mr Gojira
Overview Dynamics Inc
#207 - 2013-12-27 03:50:46 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
If we have reasonable collision detection for ships, we should be able to apply damage accordingly. In the same vein that 'bumping' is a valid tactic, so should 'ramming'. Simply put: with enough mass and momentum, you should be able to severely damage or even destroy another ship. Shields would bear the initial brunt, followed by armor and hull (with no reduction for resistances). I'm not suggesting we extend this to asteroids, stations and similar objects - only ships.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLN36pgwS5o



This is why CCP RISE won't respond to you on your 170+ page rant on why you don't like the RLML changes. You don't understand what you are saying or how it would affect things. Just stop unsub, uninstall.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#208 - 2013-12-27 05:25:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Nikk Narrel wrote:
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.

The DST will have trouble aligning or moving along the desired path if the Collision Avoidance system is on, so he will obviously want to turn it off in low sec or null. The collision avoidance system is mostly for smaller ships and for high sec. Collisions will occur as normal in low sec with the collision avoidance systems off, and the only difference from the current mechanics is that damage will occur. The DST will most likely want to keep the collision avoidance system off when outside of high sec.

Added: You should note that I propose that the MWD turns collisions off (until the scram turns the MWD off), so he could simply cycle his MWD to get out of there, assuming not enough points are on him.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Silent Rambo
Orion Positronics
#209 - 2013-12-27 15:42:32 UTC
Nag'o wrote:

It's not a matter of habit, it's a matter of choice. People wouldn't be able to use tight formations as a tactic resource. If you remove a reasonable and common tactic then you're not changing things for the better. And this is not a simple adaptation, introducing a global mechanic for collision damage is a paradigm change. It's not like an extra module or some stats change.


Just because something is a common tactic now doesn't mean its correct. Look at drone assist for example. You can still use tight formations, you'd just have to be careful if a bomber takes our your shield. Basically this is the only time a tight formation would be a liability, and it should be under certain circumstances. There should be trade offs for different formations. You talk like this would always happen, and it really wouldn't happen all that often anyway. Again, these aren't good arguments, they are arguments for the sake of arguing.

Bringing up the point of high sec criminal liability was a very good point. The argument that shields always regen constantly was a good point. Saying tactics would need to change under very specific circumstances isn't a strong argument.

You really think someone would do that? Just log into EvE and tell lies?
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#210 - 2013-12-27 16:37:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nag'o
Silent Rambo wrote:
Nag'o wrote:

It's not a matter of habit, it's a matter of choice. People wouldn't be able to use tight formations as a tactic resource. If you remove a reasonable and common tactic then you're not changing things for the better. And this is not a simple adaptation, introducing a global mechanic for collision damage is a paradigm change. It's not like an extra module or some stats change.


Just because something is a common tactic now doesn't mean its correct. Look at drone assist for example. You can still use tight formations, you'd just have to be careful if a bomber takes our your shield. Basically this is the only time a tight formation would be a liability, and it should be under certain circumstances. There should be trade offs for different formations. You talk like this would always happen, and it really wouldn't happen all that often anyway. Again, these aren't good arguments, they are arguments for the sake of arguing.

Bringing up the point of high sec criminal liability was a very good point. The argument that shields always regen constantly was a good point. Saying tactics would need to change under very specific circumstances isn't a strong argument.

So using tight formations as a tactic resource isn't correct? And please take note of the word resource as just keeping a fleet together does nothing by itself. It does have a drawback already, it's called AoE, avoidable by spread formations, whose drawback is logi range. Add collision damage to this equation and you simply take off the option of tight formations unless it's a shield fleet.
Don't get me wrong, I like the concept you're defending. If you read the first pages of this thread you will see I suggested it myself. But then I realized that this couldn't work properly in the EvE universe due to the way the game is balanced. It's too much of a radical change.
Maneuvering ships isn't a priority in EvE. Not even fast ships are manually controlled by the players. In the game, capsuleers take the role of a ship commander, so it makes sense the orders they issue are simple like "move towards direction x", "orbit object w at n km distance", "ship engines at 3/4 speed", and so on.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Druthlen
The Carlisle Group
#211 - 2013-12-27 17:04:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Druthlen
I don't understand, if there was a certain threshold of speed(500m/s) for damage to actually occur then how could a freighter gank? He could never get up the speed to do so. If damage was mass/mass and a 1 is 1000 pts of damage then rifters would do .00011 damage to a freighter but the freighters mass on top and rifters mass on bottom for its damage and it would pop. BS/titans would actually kill stuff. Retrievers and indys with MWD would be dangerous. So you would need a suspect flag. But if I hit someone with my car I get a RL suspect flag.

Mammoth mass 12,500,000 kg

Rohk mass 105,300,000 kg

A mammoth rams a rohk at 1.2k m/s the rohk takes 12.5m/105m =110 multiplied by a factor of its ramming speed (2.4x threshold) = 264 damage

The Mammoth having the advantage of choosing where it slams into the ship uses its speed to its advantage.

The Mammoth takes 105m/12.5m = 8400 damage divided by its 2.4x = 3500 damage

Obviously a battleship is now a mean smashing machine. Within 100k of stations no collision damage. Ramming at over the threshold(500m/s) flags you as suspect.

Anything rams a freighter and its going to get hurt. Freighters cant ram because they cant cross the threshold. Maybe its a dumb idea. I am not sure. The math may need to be tweaked for cruiser vs frigate but a frigate should never let a cruiser get close enough.

Oh we would have to work in the maneuverability of the craft. So the total damage could be modified by the inertia modifier.
Silent Rambo
Orion Positronics
#212 - 2013-12-27 17:12:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Silent Rambo
Nag'o wrote:
It's too much of a radical change.


This is a decent argument, if you interpret it as something hard to implement correctly. Saying people would have to change tactics is a poor argument, as balance in other areas can always make up for a disadvantages elsewhere. Its hard to figure out all the possible exploits however, since there are gaps and details that cant be thought of immediately. As far as EvE is now, id say this change would be cool maybe after WiS is implemented correctly, so maybe 10 years from now we can get some ship collisions lol, but I definitely see it as being something possible.

You really think someone would do that? Just log into EvE and tell lies?
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#213 - 2013-12-27 19:45:36 UTC
Druthlen wrote:
I don't understand, if there was a certain threshold of speed(500m/s) for damage to actually occur then how could a freighter gank?

Even if there was no speed threshold and even if collision damage occurred global at up to 100% shields (both of which I support), the idea of a freighter ramming gank seems to imply that the target could actually be chased down by a freighter. If a target allowed a freighter to get close enough, didn't move, was small enough for the collision to really hurt, and had his own collision avoidance off so that the ship did not automatically move out of the freighter's way, then it would seem as if that player wanted the freighter to ram him.

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