These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Fleet formations / weapons fire line of sight

Author
Reiisha
#1 - 2014-03-04 13:33:10 UTC
As i see it, the current method of waging war is to blob it up... Ultimately 'the guy who has more always wins'. Aside from tidi, there's not a single penalty or consequence for simply blobbing it up with as many people as you want.

This feeds directly into a game mechanic which was planned but not yet implemented: Fleet formations. However, there hasn't been any direct gameplay mechanic attached to it other than 'looking pretty', which is why we don't have them yet.

And this in it's turn feeds into my suggestion: Make weapons dependant on line of sight. If there's something in the way, you should hit that object, not the object you're targetting. This would count for all weapons.

The problem, of course, would be server load, though i believe it should be possible to do this with a simple vector calculation. As the current physics engine uses very simplistic objects anyway this should be all you need to do.

I believe tidi would remain roughly the same in the end, as fleets would, by necessity become smaller and more dispersed as fleet formations and positioning would suddenly become incredibly important. No longer can you just fire through 15 of your buddies and only hit your target. It would reward proper tactics a lot more than is the case now.

Just imagine the possibilities - Smaller ships zipping through enemy lines and causing some friendly fire, using asteroids and POS as terrain obstacles where you can perform a dance of death with an enemy fleet, or just doing the Ender's Game thing to protect larger ships.

That last thing could also mean that, if line of sight is implemented, supercaps can be changed to be less tanky, as there is less need to tank with a proper fleet.

I'm fairly sure everyone can imagine a lot of cool stuff you can do with LoS. The only people who would really lose are the lazy fleets and FC's playing the game half-afk and only following in warp and f1'ing their primary.


As a side effect, this could change doomsday guns aswell - the Amarr one for example dealing damage all along it's path on the grid, instead of just it's target. Titans would be used a lot more simply for that kind of destructive power, it would also force the fleets on the defensive to be very smart about how they approach one...

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#2 - 2014-03-04 13:44:06 UTC
Reiisha wrote:

I'm fairly sure everyone can imagine a lot of cool stuff you can do with LoS. The only people who would really lose are the lazy fleets and FC's playing the game half-afk and only following in warp and f1'ing their primary.


No FC that is any good is playing the game "half-afk". Now, the really low end of the spectrum F1 monkeys who can't find a target unless it was broadcasted might be half-afk, but certainly not the FC.

Also, LoS will mess people up in hi sec. The new grief tactic would be flying in front of someone's turret when its firing to trigger concord. And if it doesn't trigger concord, then you have a new method of killing things in hi sec without concord by shooting at a corp mate that places your target between you and them.

Finally, LoS will require lots of raycasting calculations that are going to slow the game down a lot more than it already is.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#3 - 2014-03-04 14:21:11 UTC
Line of sight, following the introduction of the ship acceleration-to-warp changes, would be the best thing that could happen to eve. Tactics would suddenly become imperative on the battlefield- you could hide behind pos, asteroids,etc; small ships could be shielded behind larger vessels as they close on the enemy; frigates fighting inside a fleet of larger vessels would become something from a Star Wars fight scene - you would even mix the fleets deliberately to avoid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_6OEjtD5Ps

This, for me, is the Holy Grail.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#4 - 2014-03-04 14:25:01 UTC
For this to work you would need to be able to select a position from tactical view and your ship move there to create correct fleet formations. Fleet construction would become a skill in itself to find and maintain the optimum formations (like the B17 box formations in WWII).

I like the idea *if* it could be implemented without too much technical difficulty.
Reiisha
#5 - 2014-03-04 14:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Reiisha
masternerdguy wrote:
Reiisha wrote:

I'm fairly sure everyone can imagine a lot of cool stuff you can do with LoS. The only people who would really lose are the lazy fleets and FC's playing the game half-afk and only following in warp and f1'ing their primary.


No FC that is any good is playing the game "half-afk". Now, the really low end of the spectrum F1 monkeys who can't find a target unless it was broadcasted might be half-afk, but certainly not the FC.

Also, LoS will mess people up in hi sec. The new grief tactic would be flying in front of someone's turret when its firing to trigger concord. And if it doesn't trigger concord, then you have a new method of killing things in hi sec without concord by shooting at a corp mate that places your target between you and them.

Finally, LoS will require lots of raycasting calculations that are going to slow the game down a lot more than it already is.


Of course i was talking about the rank and file fleet members, not the FC's :)

The hisec issue can be circumvented easily by an option for pilots to 'prevent friendly fire', just like the current security options warn you before going into 0.4 or lower and stuff like that. It would be enabled by default for new players, obviously.

Also, as far as UI goes for this: When targetting something and having it selected, you see a line between your ship and the target. When there is clear sight, the line is white, when it is blocked, the line is red. Just throwing this out there.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

Reiisha
#6 - 2014-03-04 14:29:54 UTC
Nikuno wrote:
Line of sight, following the introduction of the ship acceleration-to-warp changes, would be the best thing that could happen to eve. Tactics would suddenly become imperative on the battlefield- you could hide behind pos, asteroids,etc; small ships could be shielded behind larger vessels as they close on the enemy; frigates fighting inside a fleet of larger vessels would become something from a Star Wars fight scene - you would even mix the fleets deliberately to avoid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_6OEjtD5Ps

This, for me, is the Holy Grail.


That is exactly what i was thinking :)


Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
For this to work you would need to be able to select a position from tactical view and your ship move there to create correct fleet formations. Fleet construction would become a skill in itself to find and maintain the optimum formations (like the B17 box formations in WWII).

I like the idea *if* it could be implemented without too much technical difficulty.


Fleets would be forced to be smaller due to these logistics - I can see it happening where multiple warpin points are used and battlefields are stretched over 1000's of kilometers instead of just 100-200, at most, as they are now. Attacking and defending structures would also become a multi-vector affair. The one change FC's have to adapt to is the warp in, you can't just blob it up anymore.

The server difficulties would probably be more pronounced, but i dont think it would be a reason to not implement such a feature.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#7 - 2014-03-04 14:32:48 UTC
This would devolve some of the fleet command down to wing commander and even squad commander level, that would have to be a good thing.

For each player the line of sight marker could be left on screen (same as a repair os scram effect is displayed) to allow the pilot the choice to cancel firing if friendlies get in the way. Would mean pilots being more vigilant in fleet ops and actually having more stuff to do.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#8 - 2014-03-04 14:34:48 UTC  |  Edited by: masternerdguy
Reiisha wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:
Reiisha wrote:

I'm fairly sure everyone can imagine a lot of cool stuff you can do with LoS. The only people who would really lose are the lazy fleets and FC's playing the game half-afk and only following in warp and f1'ing their primary.


No FC that is any good is playing the game "half-afk". Now, the really low end of the spectrum F1 monkeys who can't find a target unless it was broadcasted might be half-afk, but certainly not the FC.

Also, LoS will mess people up in hi sec. The new grief tactic would be flying in front of someone's turret when its firing to trigger concord. And if it doesn't trigger concord, then you have a new method of killing things in hi sec without concord by shooting at a corp mate that places your target between you and them.

Finally, LoS will require lots of raycasting calculations that are going to slow the game down a lot more than it already is.


The hisec issue can be circumvented easily by an option for pilots to 'prevent friendly fire', just like the current security options warn you before going into 0.4 or lower and stuff like that. It would be enabled by default for new players, obviously.

Also, as far as UI goes for this: When targetting something and having it selected, you see a line between your ship and the target. When there is clear sight, the line is white, when it is blocked, the line is red. Just throwing this out there.


Cool, so I can just keep people from firing any weapons without triggering concordBig smile The miner bumpers will have new tools at their disposal.

And what about missiles? Since they travel, what if they accidentally intercept something besides their intended target? You can't "prevent friendly fire" if the munition is already discharged.

I'm not sure you get how much more work the server is going to have to handle for this to work anyway. You can't just check to see if something is in the path of the object (which is already inefficient) but whether that object is in the shadow of another one.

This is an N^2 algorithm in all likelyhood, since you need to cast every ship against every other ship to determine what is in the LoS, what is not in the LoS, and what is in the LoS but also in something's shadow. And you need to do this per turret, since every turret is at a different position on the ship.

EDIT: I am already refreshing my memory by reading some papers on the subject, real time ray tracing is still slow without taking advantage of dedicated hardware. But I know what you're going to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mrmBe-fFr4

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Reiisha
#9 - 2014-03-04 14:36:23 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
This would devolve some of the fleet command down to wing commander and even squad commander level, that would have to be a good thing.

For each player the line of sight marker could be left on screen (same as a repair os scram effect is displayed) to allow the pilot the choice to cancel firing if friendlies get in the way. Would mean pilots being more vigilant in fleet ops and actually having more stuff to do.


The "avoid friendly fire" option could have three settings - Avoiding *all* other ships and just avoiding gang/alliance/blue+, and lastly the fully off setting. I think that having to micromanage friendly fire in the way you mention might be too much with everything else that's already going on :)

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

Reiisha
#10 - 2014-03-04 14:40:04 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Cool, so I can just keep people from firing any weapons without triggering concordBig smile The miner bumpers will have new tools at their disposal.

And what about missiles? Since they travel, what i they accidentally intercept something besides their intended target? You can't "prevent friendly fire" if the munition is already discharged.

I'm not sure you get how much more work the server is going to have to handle for this to work anyway. You can't just check to see if something is in the path of the object (which is already inefficient) but whether that object is in the shadow of another one.

This is an N^2 algorithm in all likelyhood, since you need to cast every ship against every other ship to determine what is in the LoS, what is not in the LoS, and what is in the LoS but also in something's shadow. And you need to do this per turret, since every turret is at a different position on the ship.


I don't see how you can prevent them from firing anything in this way unless you are REALLY good at positioning your own ship, which also depends on your 'victim' from not moving.

Also, i think mission runners especially will welcome you standing in their way as that means you'll also have to tank NPC fire :)

For all weapons except missiles only one vector calculation is needed - Only missiles have travel time. Other weapons hit instantly. As for missiles, it is a valid point, but i don't see it as a good enough reason to scrap this idea alltogether. A solution can always be found, maybe missiles simply avoid obstacles automatically.

Actually, having missiles avoid obstacles on their own means that they can be just as effective as other weapons, whereas now they are lagging behind where pvp is concerned. Thank you for that great idea! :)

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#11 - 2014-03-04 14:43:44 UTC
Reiisha wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:
Cool, so I can just keep people from firing any weapons without triggering concordBig smile The miner bumpers will have new tools at their disposal.

And what about missiles? Since they travel, what i they accidentally intercept something besides their intended target? You can't "prevent friendly fire" if the munition is already discharged.

I'm not sure you get how much more work the server is going to have to handle for this to work anyway. You can't just check to see if something is in the path of the object (which is already inefficient) but whether that object is in the shadow of another one.

This is an N^2 algorithm in all likelyhood, since you need to cast every ship against every other ship to determine what is in the LoS, what is not in the LoS, and what is in the LoS but also in something's shadow. And you need to do this per turret, since every turret is at a different position on the ship.


I don't see how you can prevent them from firing anything in this way unless you are REALLY good at positioning your own ship, which also depends on your 'victim' from not moving.

Also, i think mission runners especially will welcome you standing in their way as that means you'll also have to tank NPC fire :)

For all weapons except missiles only one vector calculation is needed - Only missiles have travel time. Other weapons hit instantly. As for missiles, it is a valid point, but i don't see it as a good enough reason to scrap this idea alltogether. A solution can always be found, maybe missiles simply avoid obstacles automatically.

Actually, having missiles avoid obstacles on their own means that they can be just as effective as other weapons, whereas now they are lagging behind where pvp is concerned. Thank you for that great idea! :)


Have you seen missiles try to avoid stuff? They pass through things all the time still.

Also, it's not "one vector calculation" because you need to perform this vector calculation for every turret and against all objects in the scene.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Flybiere
F'n'F Inc
#12 - 2014-03-04 14:49:12 UTC
It should totally be in the game for no other reason than it breaks the immersion to be able to fire railguns through a 1km thick chunk of rock.

Working out the technicalities is obviously a must.

Highsec, I am not sure. Perhaps you get a warning if you have your safeties on and you get full on Concordokkened if you ignore this warning and end up hitting an innocent. Seems fair.

Missiles could perhaps have some form of routing so they attempt to fly around objects in their way.

Just because the mechanics that have been suggested could be exploited doesn't mean we should give up on the idea. Its likely someone out there could have a winning formula.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#13 - 2014-03-04 14:56:22 UTC
This would actually make missiles more effective in fleet ops as they can still hit targets without direct line of fire as long as the target is still in range after course deviations (which could just be roughly approximated as a trade of for minimizing server impact)
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#14 - 2014-03-04 15:02:34 UTC  |  Edited by: masternerdguy
Flybiere wrote:
It should totally be in the game for no other reason than it breaks the immersion to be able to fire railguns through a 1km thick chunk of rock.

Working out the technicalities is obviously a must.

Highsec, I am not sure. Perhaps you get a warning if you have your safeties on and you get full on Concordokkened if you ignore this warning and end up hitting an innocent. Seems fair.

Missiles could perhaps have some form of routing so they attempt to fly around objects in their way.

Just because the mechanics that have been suggested could be exploited doesn't mean we should give up on the idea. Its likely someone out there could have a winning formula.


Show me the math.

Remember, if your algorithm is N^2 or worse then it will drastically hurt performance in large scenes, such as those in large fleet fights or in a mission site. Remember how squares grow. Every unit takes a discrete amount of time for a computer to execute.

n=1 -> 1
n=2 -> 4
n=3 -> 9
n=4 -> 16

... Skipping ahead to a big blob engagement in nullsec.

n=1000 -> 1000000

In fact, in many game algorithms, 1000 entities is the point of no return where things start getting really, really, slow. This is why RTS games that have such high unit caps start to lag so badly once you get into the mid game.

But it doesn't stop there. We also have to multiply by a constant, because we have C turrets in the scene who need to be checked.

So it's more like C*N^2

Although, to be fair, that C doesn't make as big a difference as one would expect when you are already dealing with large Ns, it sure doesn't help.

And this doesn't even include things like checking to see if something is behind something else, only determining if a ray is hitting a specific ship.

There are ways you might make this more efficient by dividing up the scene into a 3D array of coordinates in memory and using some greater than or less than operations to parse it like a tree, but this doesn't help because this array takes time to generate and it would need to be regenerated every tick of the server.

I'm not against the idea of LoS, but we do not have the physical hardware to make it work without destroying lots of gameplay. Not to mention so many new special cases would have to be added to the crime watch system and other mechanics that it would surely introduce lots of bugs.

And honestly, it won't add that much new gameplay. Sure, it will make you split fleets up a little bit, but that's about it. Except for the new griefing applications of course.

Finally, if missiles avoid effectively enough, then all you'll see is the return of the Tengu and Drake because you can still blob up and anchor up.

The real reason people anchor up has nothing to do with line of sight, it's because of the way transverse velocities are calculated and applied.

EDIT: Look at the graph on this page http://bigocheatsheet.com/ . That steep N^2 cliff is almost, but not quite as bad. as a non polynomial time algorithm.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#15 - 2014-03-04 15:07:49 UTC
I don't think the server load aspect is very important because even if it could be done, it shouldn't be done.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Reiisha
#16 - 2014-03-04 15:09:27 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Have you seen missiles try to avoid stuff? They pass through things all the time still.

Also, it's not "one vector calculation" because you need to perform this vector calculation for every turret and against all objects in the scene.


They don't do that right now, but they could do - Depending on the implementation the visual could be a client side thing and the server just calculates a timeframe for when it hits.

As far as the vector calculations go, as far as i know algebraic calculations are incredibly simple to do computationally... Once CCP gets the parallel processing thing going (about time really) i don't see how this should be a big problem.

masternerdguy wrote:
*snip*


Line of sight would, i think, completely break up blob warfare. All the other issues are just problems to be solved, rather than game destroying obstacles which cannot be overcome.

You do raise some valid issues, especially regarding missiles, though ultimately i believe LOS will be a great stepping stone to making the combat in EVE far more tactical when greater numbers are involved. Small gang warfare would probably stay largely unchanged.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#17 - 2014-03-04 15:15:49 UTC  |  Edited by: masternerdguy
Reiisha wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:
Have you seen missiles try to avoid stuff? They pass through things all the time still.

Also, it's not "one vector calculation" because you need to perform this vector calculation for every turret and against all objects in the scene.


They don't do that right now, but they could do - Depending on the implementation the visual could be a client side thing and the server just calculates a timeframe for when it hits.

As far as the vector calculations go, as far as i know algebraic calculations are incredibly simple to do computationally... Once CCP gets the parallel processing thing going (about time really) i don't see how this should be a big problem.

masternerdguy wrote:
*snip*


Line of sight would, i think, completely break up blob warfare. All the other issues are just problems to be solved, rather than game destroying obstacles which cannot be overcome.

You do raise some valid issues, especially regarding missiles, though ultimately i believe LOS will be a great stepping stone to making the combat in EVE far more tactical when greater numbers are involved. Small gang warfare would probably stay largely unchanged.


The problem is you're thinking in small terms. You are stuck on the idea of 1 ship firing its weapons at 1 other. When fleets are fighting, every ship is firing its weapons. And that means your simple little linear vector operation has to be done for every ship in the scene, and is no longer a linear operation as far as efficiency is concerned. And this is before you even consider shadows.

Nobody is arguing that for N=1 this would be fast, the problem is whenever N > 1.

And if by "more tactical" you mean into a turkey shoot in which you are basically rushing across the no man's land into the next trench, then you are correct. You would be effectively putting everyone against a wall of gunfire and you will see even less diversity in tactics because the kinds of ships that give you tactical options, like frigates, interdictors, and misc support ships, are going to die horribly.

You're just going to see lots and lots of carrier fleets.

Wait a second, this would have to apply to drones too since drones use turrets as well, now all bets are off as server performance goes.

EDIT: And you can't do "the visual" client side so the server does less work! "The visual" will be literally be the same ray of intersection that was found by the server's collision testing code. You have to find that ray if your LoS idea is going to work, so why would you waste even more time by telling the client to recalculate it?

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#18 - 2014-03-04 15:23:08 UTC
The mechanic would introduce an uncountable mess of problems without giving players the tools to address them. It would be bad and frustrating gameplay.

The idea is admirable because **immersion**, but I just dont think it fits in this game.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Reiisha
#19 - 2014-03-04 15:53:46 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Reiisha wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:
Have you seen missiles try to avoid stuff? They pass through things all the time still.

Also, it's not "one vector calculation" because you need to perform this vector calculation for every turret and against all objects in the scene.


They don't do that right now, but they could do - Depending on the implementation the visual could be a client side thing and the server just calculates a timeframe for when it hits.

As far as the vector calculations go, as far as i know algebraic calculations are incredibly simple to do computationally... Once CCP gets the parallel processing thing going (about time really) i don't see how this should be a big problem.

masternerdguy wrote:
*snip*


Line of sight would, i think, completely break up blob warfare. All the other issues are just problems to be solved, rather than game destroying obstacles which cannot be overcome.

You do raise some valid issues, especially regarding missiles, though ultimately i believe LOS will be a great stepping stone to making the combat in EVE far more tactical when greater numbers are involved. Small gang warfare would probably stay largely unchanged.


The problem is you're thinking in small terms. You are stuck on the idea of 1 ship firing its weapons at 1 other. When fleets are fighting, every ship is firing its weapons. And that means your simple little linear vector operation has to be done for every ship in the scene, and is no longer a linear operation as far as efficiency is concerned. And this is before you even consider shadows.

Nobody is arguing that for N=1 this would be fast, the problem is whenever N > 1.

And if by "more tactical" you mean into a turkey shoot in which you are basically rushing across the no man's land into the next trench, then you are correct. You would be effectively putting everyone against a wall of gunfire and you will see even less diversity in tactics because the kinds of ships that give you tactical options, like frigates, interdictors, and misc support ships, are going to die horribly.

You're just going to see lots and lots of carrier fleets.

Wait a second, this would have to apply to drones too since drones use turrets as well, now all bets are off as server performance goes.

EDIT: And you can't do "the visual" client side so the server does less work! "The visual" will be literally be the same ray of intersection that was found by the server's collision testing code. You have to find that ray if your LoS idea is going to work, so why would you waste even more time by telling the client to recalculate it?


Linear operations like these should be easy to do parallel, so up to a given point it should be doable, especially with tidi involved. Also, i'm fairly sure you don't have to count every single object in the scene as the vector between ship and target is already there, i think you can optimize it to such a point where only objects near that vector have to be calculated.

As for thinking small - I think you are imagining that people still blob up and that is the reason why certain ships may not be usable anymore. However, as you have to spread the fight out they might become even more relevant, depending on positioning - They don't have to be caught in the crossfire if you split the fleet properly, that's where the positioning comes in. Frigates especially could be used to goad fleets into tactically unsound positions if done properly, for example.

Using only carriers would not be very efficient either... And yes, drones are also subject to this for consistency's sake.

With the visual i only meant that for missiles, not turrets. the server could simply calculate a possible path length and have the missile detonate after a set amount of time on the designated target. How it actually gets there visually can be done client side.

Batelle wrote:
The mechanic would introduce an uncountable mess of problems without giving players the tools to address them. It would be bad and frustrating gameplay.

The idea is admirable because **immersion**, but I just dont think it fits in this game.


How would it not fit in the game? So far i've only heard one non-technical argument against it and that is a highly speculative worst-case scenario - Which interestingly enough results in exactly the same situation we have already. Why would it be frustrating? Right now most fleets just end up in following primaries and pressing F1....

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

masternerdguy
Doomheim
#20 - 2014-03-04 16:07:57 UTC  |  Edited by: masternerdguy
So how do you determine what is "near" the vector without testing against the other ships?

You don't, because what you just said is nonsensical. You have to make comparisons or your algorithm is going to miss lots of cases and behave oddly.

This is pretty much the best case http://math.ucsd.edu/~wgarner/math4c/derivations/distance/distptline.htm and it still requires you to check to see how close each ship is to the ray. And this case treats the ship as a point, you'd use a radius to see if it was touching the ray or not.

As I have said people blob because of the advantages in transversal it gives them more than because there's no LoS.

I think "splitting the fleet properly" in your world is the same as using a few groups of sniper ships spread apart, because any close range combat is going to be a mess now.

You aren't going to "goad" any into a "tactically unsound" position with a mob of frigates with LoS anymore than you do right now because big fleets do not follow little groups of frigates.

Also, you are making missiles exempt from this mechanic which means that all I have to do is form a drake fleet and I can anchor up and blob to my heart's content and rain justice down upon all the turret lovers who can't.

I also think you are overestimating the amount of DPS an anchored up ship would absorb when blobbed up around the anchor, it would just be a little extra work for the logi ships. In fact, it might spread out incoming DPS enough that blobbing could be an effective tactic to distribute incoming DPS from an enemy fleet in much the same way NASA has ships do a BBQ Roll to spread the sunlight across the entire ship to keep it from overheating.

You are designing a game mechanic for sniper fleets, not for EVE.

Because I can predict what you're going to say next (you are going to say that these issues are just problems to be resolved) I want to point out that you aren't getting around the math, even with massive parallelism. Facts are it's too inefficient.

EDIT: The ~ is messing up that link you'll have to cut and paste it.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

123Next page