These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Newtonion Mechanics - Let's get some space realism

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2011-10-09 03:57:22 UTC
There are a few small things that CCP could to do add some tactical variety to the game. Adding solid planets/moons/stations would be a great start and really turn this graphically 3d game into a tactically 3d game. What we have now is visually 3d but tactics by fighting individuals or parties are completely 2 dimensional which is why blobs win hands down.

Whether these objects would cause damage if impacted or be destructible is completely unnecessary though it would be an added touch. Making them solid in the sense that one couldn't shoot through them would be a great feature, alone, to have. Imagine knowing there's a fleet on grid but you can't shoot them because they're hiding behind a structure or in an asteroid belt or some other LCO. It would force tactical planning. FC's would issue commands based on strategy rather than increasing numbers.

This one change alone would not add to server overhead. The server already knows where the objects are in relation to all ships on grid.The server also knows when a LCO is shot and it deals with the weapons fire typically by stopping the weapons fire where it intersects the object.

Don't ban me, bro!
ACY GTMI
Veerhouven Group
#22 - 2011-10-09 04:01:32 UTC
CCP space is exempt from all laws of physics.

Seriously, it would be programmatically impossible to implement it in real time.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#23 - 2011-10-09 04:08:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
ACY GTMI wrote:
CCP space is exempt from all laws of physics.

Seriously, it would be programmatically impossible to implement it in real time.


what are you talking about? newtonian mechanics operate on some very simple algebra. hell, the source engine does a pretty goddamn good job of emulating them. think half life 2. it would be a lot harder to implement modern physics - but you would never be able to tell the difference in a game.

you'd only run into issues if you tried to model things like liquids accurately - and you wouldn't see that in a game like EVE.

however, it would be a bad idea to implement a realistic classical physics model for other reasons - the game would just not be as fun. EVE is better as a submarine / zeppelin simulator than it could ever be as a space simulator.
Heian Galanodel
Shadow Legion Y
Seriously Suspicious
#24 - 2011-10-09 04:48:20 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
ITT: someone who does not understand Newtonian mechanics wishing for EVE to utilize Newtonian mechanics.

If EVE was realistic, then:

there would be no maximum speed, on ANY ship, except for the speed of light.

accelerating for too long in any given direction would be a dumb idea, as it would take an equal amount of time to decelerate, and twice as long to turn around.

having a large mass ship would quite simply be an absolute nightmare thanks to inertia.

projectiles, lasers and railguns would have infinite range and perfect accuracy. blasters would have a few inches of range. the only current weapon stat that would influence how often you hit would be tracking - which wouldn't matter because everyone would be flying in straight lines at absurd speeds.

no warp. have fun on your single grid for the rest of your EVE life.

basically, EVE would turn into a bunch of fat people sliding around on an infinite ice field with rockets strapped to their asses, shooting at each other with laser pointers.

the entire game would have to be rebuilt from the ground up to accommodate all this, which would be a multi-year undertaking to make EVE vastly less fun.


This.

"An acorn that is unafraid to destroy itself in growing into a tree."

-David Zindell, The Broken God (1992)-
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#25 - 2011-10-09 04:53:39 UTC
Destiny the name of the current physics engine would have a heart attack.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Foofad
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2011-10-09 05:08:00 UTC
Which is why you shouldn't actually do it. Just make it look like you're doing it. Much better solution.
Nandy Cocytus
Doomheim
#27 - 2011-10-09 05:18:00 UTC
Quote:
there would be no maximum speed, on ANY ship, except for the speed of light.


I direct you here - no definitive claims yet, but I felt it was relevant.

So it goes.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#28 - 2011-10-09 05:34:06 UTC
Nandy Cocytus wrote:
Quote:
there would be no maximum speed, on ANY ship, except for the speed of light.


I direct you here - no definitive claims yet, but I felt it was relevant.


i know about this, and we're talking classical physics.
Pseudo Ucksth
Camellia Void Cartographics
#29 - 2011-10-09 05:44:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Pseudo Ucksth
Jessica's Burden wrote:
EVE is about space, and space travel, but it really isn't realistic at all.

Injecting realism
#1 - Everything in space rotates. Moons revolve around planets and planets revolve around stars. How come the moons and planets and asteroid belts are not rotating in their own elliptical orbits? Today, when I fly from gate to station, I fly past the same moon/planet in the same boring position.

#2 - Bumping into things should cause damage. Let's have ships get damage from bumping. This includes warping to '0' and bumping into the gate. Adding the % probability of damage by warping to '0' will make it an interesting choice.
#2a) Bumping into asteroids should cause damage.

#3 - Warping through a planet/moon should cause damage. Combined with item #1, this could lead to some damage to ships during transit of a solar system, if a moon, or planet, happened to be in the path.
#3a) Enable a new class of navigation, by enabling intra solar system waypoints, to navigate through the solar system avoiding warp through planetary bodies.


All three of these things the server can do. Here's why they don't:

1) They don't do it because it causes a high load on the cluster and screws with anchored objects/bookmarks.

2) They don't do it because it is easily griefable and the bump physics/collision models would need to be completely redone. Before you think "oh just disable it in hisec" That's not how EvE works.

3a) They don't do it because it adds extraordinary amounts of time to navigation. It likely wouldn't be like how you picture it in your mind.

E:
Regarding FTL, if you read what the standard model ~actually~ says, it states that no information can travel faster than c. The most likely solution in my mind, is that the particles don't contain any information, or it is lost in transit and random new information regained upon blueshift.
Kaede Kimura
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2011-10-09 05:49:01 UTC
Wait, so you want to sound smart by saying "Newtonion[sic] mechanics," and then you complain about things that are explained by lore? (shields prevent collisions, and warping is magic enough already that they don't need to explain ****) How about some REALLY basic **** like Newton's first law?
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#31 - 2011-10-09 05:54:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
Pseudo Ucksth wrote:

E:
Regarding FTL, if you read what the standard model ~actually~ says, it states that no information can travel faster than c. The most likely solution in my mind, is that the particles don't contain any information, or it is lost in transit and random new information regained upon blueshift.


two things to remember:
1) mass, charge, spin etc - all information
2) you can't argue semantics when talking about physics - argue math because the words are just a simplified approximation.

but yeah, seeing the study on neutrinos moving faster than light was fascinating.
Wild Rho
The Riot Formation
#32 - 2011-10-09 06:47:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Wild Rho
Jessica's Burden wrote:

#1 - Everything in space rotates. Moons revolve around planets and planets revolve around stars. How come the moons and planets and asteroid belts are not rotating in their own elliptical orbits? Today, when I fly from gate to station, I fly past the same moon/planet in the same boring position.

Planets, moons and stations in orbit move pretty damn fast and their paths would not be at all intuitive to players. This would require a massive change to how ships are flown (anyone who's played Elite 2 or 3 can probably imagine) for no practical gain.

Jessica's Burden wrote:

#2 - Bumping into things should cause damage. Let's have ships get damage from bumping. This includes warping to '0' and bumping into the gate. Adding the % probability of damage by warping to '0' will make it an interesting choice.
#2a) Bumping into asteroids should cause damage.

Too easily abused (i.e. using ramming to suicide kill people in high sec, parking a freighter in a docking bay / gate path so someone rams me and dies).

Jessica's Burden wrote:

#3 - Warping through a planet/moon should cause damage. Combined with item #1, this could lead to some damage to ships during transit of a solar system, if a moon, or planet, happened to be in the path.
#3a) Enable a new class of navigation, by enabling intra solar system waypoints, to navigate through the solar system avoiding warp through planetary bodies.

Game lore already explains why you pass through planets etc unharmed. There's nothing but extra hassle for no practical gain by taking damage flying through planets.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#33 - 2011-10-09 07:24:43 UTC
my god people

Newtonian mechanics break down as you approach the speed of light. The slowest warp speeds in the game exceed the speed of light by orders of magnitude. While having other ships contract and redshift as they enter warp would be wicked awesome, I think CCP should really focus their developers' time on other things.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Sin Meng
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2011-10-09 07:35:04 UTC
9/10 Because of how many people took the bait.

Elements of the past and the future combining to make something not quite as good as either.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#35 - 2011-10-09 07:36:00 UTC
bad threads are always trolls when the OP jumps back to the ~puppetmasta~ defence

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#36 - 2011-10-09 07:52:52 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Pseudo Ucksth wrote:
Regarding FTL, if you read what the standard model ~actually~ says, it states that no information can travel faster than c. The most likely solution in my mind, is that the particles don't contain any information, or it is lost in transit and random new information regained upon blueshift.
two things to remember:
1) mass, charge, spin etc - all information
2) you can't argue semantics when talking about physics - argue math because the words are just a simplified approximation.
…and anyway, the actual semantics of the model only attempts to distinguish between information-carrying phenomena and indirect an projected phenomena. It is trivial to create “something” that moves at FTL speeds — just sweep a beam of light across the surface of the moon in less than 10ms or so (iirc), which is very easy to do from your back yard, and the light spot it creates on the moon will move across that surface at more than 300,000 km/s.
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#37 - 2011-10-09 09:07:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Rodj Blake
If the game employed Newtonian mechanics it would take years to get to another system.

Is that what you want?

Also, am I the only person who saw the title and had this mental image of newts dressed in overalls trying to fix a broken onion?

Dolce et decorum est pro Imperium mori
Kerdrak
Querry Moon
#38 - 2011-10-09 09:09:39 UTC
Videogames don't have to be realistic, only "credible"
AureoLion
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2011-10-09 09:30:30 UTC
Having no top speed would be hilariously inefficient.
Having to prepare turning points, avoid collision damage, and all that jingle would turn that game in a physics simulator, an instrument of science, and not a game.
Reeno Coleman
#40 - 2011-10-09 09:43:04 UTC
And while we're at realism. Disallow warping. And lasers. And shields. And warpgates. And cynos. And FTL-comms. And invulnarable structures. And PI. And wormholes. And forcefields. And remote repair. And cloak.
Previous page123Next page