These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Moving Avatars?

Author
YuuKnow
The Scope
#1 - 2012-02-19 10:30:06 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
How easy/difficult would it be to make the Avatar portraits come alive. Head sway, eye movement and blinking, subtle facial expression changes... would it be possible? Think StarCraft 2 portrait like.

Doable?

Edit: This would be more cool in corp and gang/fleet chat. Probably not as interesting in local. If in gang/fleet or corp chat, it would make the Eve Chat feel more like a real time video com system and offer a nice immersion. Whereas local is more of a staic broadcast system (not a RP ship-ship video-link like corp or fleet chat).
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
#2 - 2012-02-19 11:31:04 UTC
I've got a bit of a stiff neck this week, if you could wait until it's not so painful that would be appreciated, thanks.

WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place...

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-02-19 15:48:48 UTC
Doable, yes.

Sensible, no (consider graphics cards and memeory usage) for benefit.

Priority, hell no.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#4 - 2012-02-19 16:12:40 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Doable, yes.

Sensible, no (consider graphics cards and memeory usage) for benefit.

Priority, hell no.


This, exactly.

Keep in mind that there is no server running SC2, it's all local with a matchmaker and all files are local and there are no more than 8 (IIRC) machines communicating at the same time. Eve has a server running and connecting to 30-35k people around the world at any given time and it's more than impractical to store every person's char picture on the client at all times. Meaning that the server would have the constant overhead of sending out animated char pictures (not just the current static ones). Depending on the number of frames in the proposed animated char pictures, it could increase the load of the system that handles it by 10-200x instantly.

So, it is physically doable, but it is in no way practical, needed, useful, or a priority.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#5 - 2012-02-19 16:20:07 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Doable, yes.

Sensible, no (consider graphics cards and memeory usage) for benefit.

Priority, hell no.


You do realize that there is an entire graphics department of Eve Online that is independently working on Eve art/graphics at all times right? Its not like they have to pause all other game developement just to work on one thing at a time.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#6 - 2012-02-19 16:22:00 UTC
mxzf wrote:
Keep in mind that there is no server running SC2, it's all local with a matchmaker and all files are local and there are no more than 8 (IIRC) machines communicating at the same time. Eve has a server running and connecting to 30-35k people around the world at any given time and it's more than impractical to store every person's char picture on the client at all times. Meaning that the server would have the constant overhead of sending out animated char pictures (not just the current static ones). Depending on the number of frames in the proposed animated char pictures, it could increase the load of the system that handles it by 10-200x instantly.

So, it is physically doable, but it is in no way practical, needed, useful, or a priority.


The more sensible way to do it would to be to make it client side, not server side. Wouldn't contribute to server load.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-02-19 16:44:03 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Doable, yes.

Sensible, no (consider graphics cards and memeory usage) for benefit.

Priority, hell no.


You do realize that there is an entire graphics department of Eve Online that is independently working on Eve art/graphics at all times right? Its not like they have to pause all other game developement just to work on one thing at a time.


Yes. And I'd prefer them to focus on IG content like they have been doing like nebulae and UI. Maybe new ships and icons or graphical elements of things that do something.

I'm really not interested in having multiple faces dancing on my screen as a distraction when it isnt really needed, largely pointless at the resolutions afforded for real embelishment of detail for what it is.

Yuo want to view someone there is a see full character in the show info details.

Why add to the game workload with trivial things like this, when other performance improvements to the interface are needed?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2012-02-19 16:46:54 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:
mxzf wrote:
Keep in mind that there is no server running SC2, it's all local with a matchmaker and all files are local and there are no more than 8 (IIRC) machines communicating at the same time. Eve has a server running and connecting to 30-35k people around the world at any given time and it's more than impractical to store every person's char picture on the client at all times. Meaning that the server would have the constant overhead of sending out animated char pictures (not just the current static ones). Depending on the number of frames in the proposed animated char pictures, it could increase the load of the system that handles it by 10-200x instantly.

So, it is physically doable, but it is in no way practical, needed, useful, or a priority.


The more sensible way to do it would to be to make it client side, not server side. Wouldn't contribute to server load.


Do you really want to download gigabytes of portraits?
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
#9 - 2012-02-19 16:50:03 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:
mxzf wrote:
Keep in mind that there is no server running SC2, it's all local with a matchmaker and all files are local and there are no more than 8 (IIRC) machines communicating at the same time. Eve has a server running and connecting to 30-35k people around the world at any given time and it's more than impractical to store every person's char picture on the client at all times. Meaning that the server would have the constant overhead of sending out animated char pictures (not just the current static ones). Depending on the number of frames in the proposed animated char pictures, it could increase the load of the system that handles it by 10-200x instantly.

So, it is physically doable, but it is in no way practical, needed, useful, or a priority.


The more sensible way to do it would to be to make it client side, not server side. Wouldn't contribute to server load.


Do you really want to download gigabytes of portraits?


Absolutely not!

WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place...

mxzf
Shovel Bros
#10 - 2012-02-19 16:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: mxzf
Serge Bastana wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:
The more sensible way to do it would to be to make it client side, not server side. Wouldn't contribute to server load.


Do you really want to download gigabytes of portraits?


Absolutely not!


Well, the only way to make it client-side is to already have all the portraits client-side. AKA, download them all. The picture data has to come from somewhere. Hence it's not feasible to do as the OP is suggesting.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#11 - 2012-02-19 18:42:48 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
mxzf wrote:
Well, the only way to make it client-side is to already have all the portraits client-side. AKA, download them all. The picture data has to come from somewhere. Hence it's not feasible to do as the OP is suggesting.


Err... no. I mean that the server wouldn't be doing anything different than it is right now in regards to player portraits. Its what the client does with the current portrait data that would be different. Probably should be restricted to fleet and corp chat only as it would make the corp and fleet chat feel more like a real time video-com system and offer a nice immersion. Whereas local is more of a staic broadcast system (not a ship-ship video-link like corp or fleet coms would be). And because corps/gangs are more repetitative, consistent, and small than local, the server download data would be next to nothing in regards to increased data. PCool

Shouldn't be a noticable change. You'ld have to ask the actual tech guys what they think.

Grumpy Owly wrote:
Yes. And I'd prefer them to focus on IG content like they have been doing like nebulae and UI. Maybe new ships and icons or graphical elements of things that do something.

I'm really not interested in having multiple faces dancing on my screen as a distraction when it isnt really needed, largely pointless at the resolutions afforded for real embelishment of detail for what it is.

Yuo want to view someone there is a see full character in the show info details.

Why add to the game workload with trivial things like this, when other performance improvements to the interface are needed?


Avatars **are** "ingame content" and are the most consistent part of the interface.

The interface 'upgrades' that have been produced so far aren't noticable and haven't done much for game experience IMHO. I bet the majority of players can't tell the difference in their game between the Pre 1.2 patch interface and post 1.2 patch interface at all. Continueing to work on UI changes like the 1.2 patch won't do anything to most players game experience, whereas everyone would benefit from eye-candy upgrades.

The nebulas you mention are *actually* an example of how graphical improvements boost game experience. Despite the fact that the nebulas added no real functional improvement to the gameplay itself, they still boosted the eye-candy and most would agree the game is a little better after the upgrade. The original avatar upgrade is actually the reason that I renewed my account tbh.

The graphics department should NOT be wasting time working on new ships/modules as the devs haven't even figured out how to correctly balance the ones they already have. NO NEW SHIPS/MODULES until the current ones are balanced. Thus that shouldn't be a consideration for a while to come. Avatars being the next most consistent part of the graphics/UI would have a big impact on the eye-candy (and more eye-candy means more teh sexy).

For those with olders systems/graphics cards, or that don't like it, there should probably be an "OFF" options on the option menus. It can also be relegated to corp and fleet chat for the reason's above.

Most eye-candy = more coolness = better game. Far better than trival interface changes that no one really notices.

yk
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2012-02-19 19:10:26 UTC
YuuKnow wrote:

Err... no. I mean that the server wouldn't be doing anything different than it is right now in regards to player portraits. Its what the client does with the current portrait data that would be different. Probably should be restricted to fleet and corp chat only as it would make the corp and fleet chat feel more like a real time video-com system and offer a nice immersion. Whereas local is more of a staic broadcast system (not a ship-ship video-link like corp or fleet coms would be). And because corps/gangs are more repetitative, consistent, and small than local, the server download data would be next to nothing in regards to increased data. PCool

Should be a noticable change. You'ld have to ask the actual tech guys what they think.


The server would have to provide a lot more data for the clients to be able to do anything with it. Fleet chat would still involve pulling the portraits of everyone in the game, or else how would big fleets work? Coalition wide fleets, incursion fleets, fleeting up with some guy you've never met before etc? Fleets are NOT repetitive or consistent.

What about the big corps with thousands of members? Or even just the ones with several hundred? That's still an awful lot of extra data you'd need everyone to download compared with static images. I doubt running 250 moving portraits at once is going to be particularly good for performance either.

This really isn't going to work.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#13 - 2012-02-19 19:32:15 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
Danika Princip wrote:
The server would have to provide a lot more data for the clients to be able to do anything with it. Fleet chat would still involve pulling the portraits of everyone in the game, or else how would big fleets work? Coalition wide fleets, incursion fleets, fleeting up with some guy you've never met before etc? Fleets are NOT repetitive or consistent.

What about the big corps with thousands of members? Or even just the ones with several hundred? That's still an awful lot of extra data you'd need everyone to download compared with static images. I doubt running 250 moving portraits at once is going to be particularly good for performance either.

This really isn't going to work.


I guess it all depends on
1) how many kB of data is transferred with the current portrait system
2) how many more kB of data would be transferred with moving portraits.
3) the resolution of the portraits. We aren't talking about fully 3D images here, just 2D portraits/pictures with some head sway, eye blinking, that simulate a realtime video com.

And again, there would be an OFF option for times when your fleet is large. And also your corp isn't going to be getting new members so much that you will need to retransfer there portraits every login (a lot of the common portraits are saved client side currently remember).

We need some tech input from the devs to grant some perpective to the techincal needs. I'm not a coder myself.

yk
Amaroq Dricaldari
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-02-20 02:54:14 UTC
Half-Supported

Step 1: Make it an option that you can turn on and off (not everyone's Graphics Card can support it)
Step 2: Make it only apply to the Character Sheet window, Character Info windows, and the portrait on the Newcom
Step 3: Add the ability to give your player a voice as well (customizable with sliders or one of those pentagon-looking things) plus some lines that your character could say (such as "Anyone else want some?" or "Next time, try turning the safety off"). Note that I got those examples from Unreal Tournament.

This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.