These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Collision damage
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jace Errata
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-04-05 16:22:26 UTC
WTB screenshot of an Erebus ramming a Ragnarok amidships.

tweeten

One day they woke me up so I could live forever

It's such a shame the same will never happen to you
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-04-05 17:45:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Interesting development in this thread. Issues include shield theory, Jita undock, aggression, and code have all been addressed.

Shield theory of repulsive electric fields applies to a point, and may save this idea by allowing small bumps (small differences in velocity). Shields are not infinite and may be breached with sufficient velocity. One option is to apply shield damage to a small degree or to no degree until the velocity overcomes the shield's strength. With smaller ships using smaller shields, that threshold would be lower than for ships with larger shields. An example in action may be the following: A collision at 500 m/s delivers damage of 1/2*mass*velocity^2. The shields mitigate damage up to say 1/5 of their strength and then the rest of the damage is applied to each ship. The velocity is the same for both ship, because it is the relative velocity between them (diff in velocities), but the BS applies more damage to the frig because its mass is higher than the frig's mass, plus its shields are stronger and therefore absorb a larger amount of the collision damage. If shields absorb 1/5 of their total strength in shield damage, the larger machine will easily win a ramming contest, but if damage can exceed the BS shields absorption, then multiple frig collisions may overwhelm the BS. Assuming the theory that shields spare damage by repulsive means, many objects exist without shields besides weapons/ammo, including asteroids, jetcans, and pos guns.

I think that the Jita undock issue could be addressed with several different options for your consideration:
a) Ships are timed to undock when the undock area is clear,
b) Undock cameras allow players to see if an undock is clear.
c) Multiple undock points allow a player to see and select a clear undock lane. Station camping becomes a little harder, too.
d) Avoid collision option has the ship automatically steering to avoid collisions.

For aggression, obviously Concord cannot assign aggression and so Concord would force all ships entering HS to fly with anti-collision systems activated.

For the code, anti-collision systems may use functions similar to the "Keep at distance" or orbit functions, where the distance is based on the current velocity of the ship relative to each object, and on its inertia.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Niko DelValle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-04-05 18:02:27 UTC
Um... no, this just wouldn't work.

Would be hilarious to watch though, hahahahaha
This is not the signature you're looking for. / This is not the signature I'm looking for. /    You will search for other signatures. / I will search for other signatures. /
geouss
Rattium Incorporated
#24 - 2012-04-05 18:06:46 UTC
hey guys,
i agree with this fully. also it would help is objects were solid so u can hide behind asteroids while u call for backup ^_^
geouss
Rattium Incorporated
#25 - 2012-04-05 18:07:21 UTC
and punish idiots would block your line of fire
geouss
Rattium Incorporated
#26 - 2012-04-05 18:16:05 UTC
SGT FUNYOUN wrote:
***SCIENCE WARNING***

The reason that two ships don't do damage in a bump now is because of the Shields.

Two forces of the same exact type can have the ability to cancel each other out or repel one another.

Two shields (which are basically electromagnetic force fields) hit eachother, and bounce the ships away because they are repeling each other. The two shields polarize, and repel, much like two south poles on two magnets repel each other. There is nothing there to penetrate either shield as it is just two electromagnetic fields pushing eachother away.

The reason why bullets, missles, rockets, shells, charges, bombs, and laser beams (kinda obvious on the last one there) DON'T bounce off, is because they are not polarizing the field with a field of their own because these devices do not have a shield field to project.

It is a good thing your shield bounces you off of other ships, in reality, the shield would have been created to stop bullets from killing you, a side effect of this is the airbags and seat belts it basically replicates to keep your ship from splattering you all over the side of a station like a Mig in a tail spin during the Vietnam War.

Not to mention it would be a real pain in the tail to have just bought and fitted a 3 billion ISK ship, ride out of the station, and have the Jita traffic jam splatter it into a fire ball even before your station exiting screen downloaded and hit your computers processors.

You can't fly like an aircraft simulator in EVE Online, THAT alone is one of the best reasons I can give for a NO to your OP; simply put, you can't fly AROUND anything else, thus you would never leave the station because you would blow up on the first glitchy broken pixel you saw.




this is actually the solution to ramming. if the ship has shield then it should repell a high speed projectile easier (similar to mechanic in mass effect with shield taking damage). i am more interested in the solid objects mechanic being used to counter the blobbing factor. and it would also give the miners a fighting chance if they use the asteroid fields to deflect some of the missiles/projectiles that are used on them.

it would also force some ppl to do actual manuveuring in the game instead of just speed tanking and armor/hull tankingdamage.
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-04-05 18:52:57 UTC
ElQuirko wrote:


I've seen the idea of ramming damage in a sort of vague way floating around, and I've thought it too. Watching one of the EVE trailers where a Nyx smashes through some sort of station wall reminded me of it just now...

Wouldn't it be awesome/OP (depending on your opinion) if capitals could, if under enough pressure, ram other capitals for damage? I gave it some thought, and came up with this:

Skill - Kamikaze
If a capital pilot has reached a critically low level of hitpoints (e.g. 10% armor remaining, or just into structure), the skill would give them a right-click option to "kamikaze" into a target. The rightclick would align them to a target, start a 15s warmup period of the engines, after which all locks on it would be broken, and then fly at a velocity determined by the pilot's skill (135% of max velocity for level 1, 160% for level 2, 200% for level 3, 245% for level 4, 275% for level 5) into the target. The damage would be determined by the momentum of the object (mass * velocity) divided by the kinetic resistance of the enemy's shield and, if breached, the enemy's armor. However, due to my calculations showing that a capital hitting another capital creates billions of damage, the damage will be determined by 1/20,000th of mass * velocity.

Take, for example, a Thanatos.

The Thanatos pilot is going down, his tank has failed and there's an enemy Nyx flying directly ahead of him. The Thanatos has a mass of 1,163,250,000 kg, which divided by 20,000 makes it 58,162kg, and this pilot has Kamikaze at level 3. Therefore, his base velocity of 75m/s becomes 150m/s. This amounts to a momentum of 17,448,750,000 kgm/s. Theoretically, the enemy nyx pilot has an 80% kinetic resist on his shield. This would cause 1,744,860 damage to the Nyx's shield and would destroy the Thanatos. Furthermore, in order to stop gratuitous suicide capitals, the impact would also kill the capsuleer, resulting in no chance of escape.

This is just a theory that went through my head earlier. I'd like suggestions on either how to improve/balance it further, or rational explanations as to why it's complete bollocks.

(P.S. It's capitals only, but not for supercaps. 'Cause that'd make them even more retardedly OP.)



It's been discussed.

Dodixie > Hek
Quade Warren
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-04-05 20:41:37 UTC
You're looking at some pretty intense collision detection that would have to be implemented server side.

I'm no veteran programmer, but let us break it down. Currently, Eve appears to utilize a collision cheat, which is an invisible bubble surrounding all ships. Collision detection on a bubble is MUCH easier than on, let's say, a Hyperion. For each face on a complex polygon you would have to determine whether or not there is a collision. If you take a look at all the spikes, gizmos and other odd shapes that compose or Eve reality, then collision detection becomes a computational nightmare.

This is not lessened any more by determining interceptions. Since Jita is our test bed, look at all the ships undocking or around Jita 4-4. Now I fire a single shot through all of them. They are all traveling at different speeds or angles, velocities if you will. You have to calculate whether or not there is an interception for each ship in the ships path.

Ramming could be simply implemented by having a damage modifier on the current bubbles, but this would cascade into a demand for more accurate collisions to determine more accurate damage. It would ultimately result in the programmers having to do all of the above.

I'm all for this, but we do not have the processing power just yet.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-04-05 22:35:53 UTC
To ElQ, just because you discussed a variant of the idea using a new Kamikazi skill and lots of both crazy and similar ideas doesn't mean that this discussion was effectively covered by your work.

Quade Warren wrote:
You're looking at some pretty intense collision detection that would have to be implemented server side.

I'm no veteran programmer, but let us break it down. Currently, Eve appears to utilize a collision cheat, which is an invisible bubble surrounding all ships. Collision detection on a bubble is MUCH easier than on, let's say, a Hyperion. For each face on a complex polygon you would have to determine whether or not there is a collision. If you take a look at all the spikes, gizmos and other odd shapes that compose or Eve reality, then collision detection becomes a computational nightmare.

This is not lessened any more by determining interceptions. Since Jita is our test bed, look at all the ships undocking or around Jita 4-4. Now I fire a single shot through all of them. They are all traveling at different speeds or angles, velocities if you will. You have to calculate whether or not there is an interception for each ship in the ships path.

Ramming could be simply implemented by having a damage modifier on the current bubbles, but this would cascade into a demand for more accurate collisions to determine more accurate damage. It would ultimately result in the programmers having to do all of the above.

I'm all for this, but we do not have the processing power just yet.


Quade, I think it is a given that collisions will only look at radial velocities and masses of both objects with the distance shown on the overview is 0 m. However CCP does it, they already have a way of determining both distance and radial velocities. I am not asking for any new polygon approaches or other new computations. Secondly, I am not asking for any changes in current firing mechanics for weapons and ammo. No demands for more accurate collisions and damages. No computational nightmares. Sufficient data already exists to determine damages. The largest issues as I see it are avoiding collisions while warping to a point. I think CCP needs to step up their game on this anyway by calculating a safe place to drop out of warp to avoid collisions when the player has anti-collision enable. The warp engines just drop the ship out of warp a little sooner or later to avoid collisions.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Previous page12