These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

EVE seriously needs more realistic physics, but with a twist

Author
Zenboca
Doomheim
#1 - 2016-10-02 07:14:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Zenboca
The most annoying thing in EVE Online's submarine simulation is that we are not in space. How do I know that?

Because when I use afterburner and I turn it off my ship starts to deaccelerate. That is not possible space where are no friction caused by the middle.

I am not asking for totally realistic physics, because then we would not have warp or jump gates. What I am asking is kind of 'locally realistic physics'.

Just a small change would make a great change. That would be that you would have to use your cap in order to stop your ship, like in real life space ship has to do. It would not be bad for the game.

Imagine a situation that you are flying an interceptor. You have to tackle a mindless ratting raven in a asteroid belt. You pulse your AB, you gain speed. You attain that speed. You close AB, but you keep your speed. Then you get close to that raven. Then you have to use reverse thrusters to slow down to get into orbit. In my vision you would have to control the AB by yourself, but in each ship would have automated thrusters for orbit. Now the interesting part is that the orbit done by the automated thrusters should also use some cap. So you could actually run out of cap and then you would lose the orbit and just keep going straight.

Actually, in real world, with these ships, an interceptor might actually have "natural" orbit around a titan since titan is so massive. But gaming wise that would be too much. I think that the server and clients could not handle the calculations for that kind of simulation, yet.

But just a smallish change in 'local physics' would give this game much more immersion and feeling of realism.

Also the cap generator or what ever fusion reactor there is, should get some changes. It has been the same way since 2003. Perhaps some fuel blocks for it too? More complexity please Blink

And yes, I have decided to stay and play EVE Cool
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2 - 2016-10-02 07:16:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Shae Tadaruwa
Something, something warp drives affect acceleration and deceleration, even at sub warp speeds.

There's lore on it somewhere or something.

Possibly something different, just my recollection.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Wachutu
OneManShow
#3 - 2016-10-02 07:39:55 UTC
only missles mechanics need change...
Another Posting Alt
Zerious Fricken Biziness
#4 - 2016-10-02 10:49:43 UTC
Wachutu wrote:
only missles mechanics need change...


What about collision physics too. Bumping is pretty silly at the moment. The amount of times I've been stuck in something invisible is ridiculous.
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries
Band of Boogers
#5 - 2016-10-02 10:53:40 UTC
I asked for similar things many years ago..... real physics like guns dont have falloff, removal of the unnatural deaccelration, line of travel alered by passsing heavy object like planets, moons, suns ect, and slingshot navigation....


But the forum-tijuana-express was high and ******** as always and argued that "NOOOO! Its EVE, it cant be change cuz it will f... up how we play.

So even ask here for real physics, might backfire in ways only very very happy happy men can imagening.
u3pog
Ministerstvo na otbranata
#6 - 2016-10-02 11:02:43 UTC
Regarding the bumping: we already have kinetic energy (damage), mass, velocity, shield/armor/hull, so we have all the ingredients for a real-life crashing simulation. My guess is CCP did not implement this because it would affect the game play negatively.

Some other features may be limited by the programming code. For example we have drag in EVE as if we are flying in a liquid, no gravity, no heat (you could fly into a star without a problem), artillery reaches targets at over 200 kms instantly, you can fly through celestial objects etc. All of those are simply not the focus of the game and may require too much effort to implement, when there is so much other things they are working on...

I for one can't wait to see player built star gates and how will they affect the game.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#7 - 2016-10-02 11:03:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
Zenboca wrote:
Also the cap generator or what ever fusion reactor there is, should get some changes. It has been the same way since 2003. Perhaps some fuel blocks for it too? More complexity please Blink

If they will do it, then I hope you will forget to fuel your spaceship and will get stuck 3 km from Jita undock. And everyone will laugh at you.
And you will have to get outside and push it with your capsule.
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-10-02 11:07:32 UTC
Yes lets add a sh*tton of complexity with no actual gains, just making the game a bigger hassle to play. Great idea.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
#9 - 2016-10-02 11:14:04 UTC
Zenboca wrote:
... Because when I use afterburner and I turn it off my ship starts to deaccelerate. That is not possible space where are no friction caused by the middle....
The lore reason for this behaviour in space is that the Warp-drive, build into every Capsuleer flyable ship, acts as a drag anchor in space when it is not engaged. Hence the loss of momentum when normal forward thrust is reduced or disengaged.
Probably the RL reason is that it could severely enhance the difficulty level of flying in space and as such negatively affect gameplay.

Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#10 - 2016-10-02 11:25:34 UTC
Space is a liquid.
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2016-10-02 16:42:15 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Yes lets add a sh*tton of complexity with no actual gains, just making the game a bigger hassle to play. Great idea.


This is really what it boils down to. Realistic physics in Eve would make the game less enjoyable for most of the player base. Combat would basically become drivebys where you hope you kill your opponent on the first shot, because it's going to take an hour to turn around and reapproach. Flight modeling would become a chore, not to mention the serious overload all the new calculations would put on the sever.

That's the kind of physics engine you build into a single player simulator, not a game intended for thousands of people to play at once. At some point, playability has to trump modelling the real world. There are some changes I would like to see, like object occlusion (making asteroids and stations and other ships something you can actually hide behind), but even that has issues, considering that the only ammunition that is actually treated as a physical object are missiles and their kin.

What you're asking for really won't improve the game in any meaningful way, and it will make it less enjoyable in a number of them.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Piugattuk
Lone Star Warriors
Evictus.
#12 - 2016-10-02 17:00:28 UTC
I agree with everything you say, except, this is a game, too much realism can be annoying, I love the fact I can warp right through a moon or station, planets, etc, yes I love it.
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries
Band of Boogers
#13 - 2016-10-02 18:15:48 UTC
Piugattuk wrote:
I agree with everything you say, except, this is a game, too much realism can be annoying, I love the fact I can warp right through a moon or station, planets, etc, yes I love it.


tbh... one of the first Things that i disliked in EVE was InFact that i couldnt crash and die when i flew thru a planet, moon or the sun.... and i tried hard to find ways to commit suicide without using gankers or selfdestruct.

When it comes to hispeed and ramming Object in EVE, CCP threats players like americans threats their children... putting helmets on every kid and refuse them to be active....

So u all will become fat and lazy EVE players... "will become" might in most case is an obsolete phrase here EvilEvilEvil
Piugattuk
Lone Star Warriors
Evictus.
#14 - 2016-10-02 18:26:56 UTC
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
Piugattuk wrote:
I agree with everything you say, except, this is a game, too much realism can be annoying, I love the fact I can warp right through a moon or station, planets, etc, yes I love it.


tbh... one of the first Things that i disliked in EVE was InFact that i couldnt crash and die when i flew thru a planet, moon or the sun.... and i tried hard to find ways to commit suicide without using gankers or selfdestruct.

When it comes to hispeed and ramming Object in EVE, CCP threats players like americans threats their children... putting helmets on every kid and refuse them to be active....

So u all will become fat and lazy EVE players... "will become" might in most case is an obsolete phrase here EvilEvilEvil



But then (sarcasm), miner bumping wouldn't be fun Roll
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2016-10-02 18:31:21 UTC
Submarines are great. Can't see the benefit in completely changing movement, especially when manual piloting through doubleclicking is hard enough as it is.
Arcelian
Abditum Testa Societas
#16 - 2016-10-02 20:25:39 UTC
The space puddin is here to stay.
Vortexo VonBrenner
Doomheim
#17 - 2016-10-03 00:36:55 UTC
Why has nobody thought of this before?!!!


ColdCutz
Frigonometry
#18 - 2016-10-03 01:09:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Space is a liquid.

Yeah No.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#19 - 2016-10-03 03:04:51 UTC
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:

tbh... one of the first Things that i disliked in EVE was InFact that i couldnt crash and die when i flew thru a planet, moon or the sun.... and i tried hard to find ways to commit suicide without using gankers or selfdestruct.

When it comes to hispeed and ramming Object in EVE, CCP threats players like americans threats their children... putting helmets on every kid and refuse them to be active....

So u all will become fat and lazy EVE players... "will become" might in most case is an obsolete phrase here EvilEvilEvil

Because ganking with ramming would be too abusive. Mechanically telling who was at fault in a ramming incident is well..... pretty much impossible. Meaning either we have a situation where the gankers use ramming machs to gank everything. Or they put newbie ships in front of you and you get concorded for ramming them.

I.E. Game play. It's not about 'keeping people safe'. It's about having consistent non abusable game mechanics.
Neph
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#20 - 2016-10-03 03:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Neph
double post please ignore

~ Gariushi YC110 // Midular YC115 // Yanala YC115 ~

"Orte Jaitovalte sitasuyti ne obuetsa useuut ishu. Ketsiak ishiulyn." -Yakiya Tovil-Toba-taisoka

123Next page