These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Change turret damage calculation: No more “space-balls“, time to give us real ships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#21 - 2013-02-06 03:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
One huge flaw with 'critical engine hits'.
It overly benefits shield ships vs armour ships. Because shield won't be taking extra damage.
Also you assume the typical starship trope of 'One shot in the right place kills any ship'. Which just isn't true. Even now days ships have extra armour surrounding drive mechanisms as well as procedures in place to mitigate any hits there.
You 'might' temporarily disable a mechanism, but again, this would heavily load in favour of shields if this were implimented since nothing gets actually hit on a shield hit.
So for game balance you have to leave critical hits out of it.

Actual profiles and hits scattering across the entire surface of the ship, and misses skimming just past it as it flies, that would be nice though.
But would require tesselation.

Shots then go in a certain cone based on the guns tracking, guns sig radius (basically the scatter of the gun shooting something stationary) & the speed of the target etc. And randomly land inside the cone. The tesselation tech then checks for an intersection between the shot & the ship, if it occurs then generates an impact on the target ship, doing visuals & damage.
Cari Cullejen
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-02-06 05:33:11 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
One huge flaw with 'critical engine hits'.
It overly benefits shield ships vs armour ships. Because shield won't be taking extra damage.
Also you assume the typical starship trope of 'One shot in the right place kills any ship'. Which just isn't true. Even now days ships have extra armour surrounding drive mechanisms as well as procedures in place to mitigate any hits there.
You 'might' temporarily disable a mechanism, but again, this would heavily load in favour of shields if this were implimented since nothing gets actually hit on a shield hit.
So for game balance you have to leave critical hits out of it.


This system would not make armor tanking better than shield, or vise versa, It is most likely that the part of the shield surrounding the engine would be powered down at the point of activation; to prevent it from burning through its own shield (or at least that makes sense) and you cant just place armored plates in front of engines! where would the flames go?

What are you looking for here? Read the post!
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2013-02-06 06:52:20 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
One huge flaw with 'critical engine hits'.
It overly benefits shield ships vs armour ships. Because shield won't be taking extra damage.


Just image what will happen when the frame come across the shield. Frame is not what you can control like bullets or missile, and you can not really stop it from burning the shield . Keep in mind the shield in EVE is rightly above the armor.

So it should be pretty reasonable for the shield near thrusters to have weaker resistance as well as armor.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#24 - 2013-02-06 07:27:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
If ship profiles, angles, armor thickness at different places on hulls and ship surface area come into play with damage calculations...... then why is this not extended into the context of capital ammo size meets small sub-cap hull = splat on windshield even if its a near miss?

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#25 - 2013-02-06 07:59:44 UTC
This is a buff Winmatar thread, isn't it?
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2013-02-06 08:26:39 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
If ship profiles, angles, armor thickness at different places on hulls and ship surface area come into play with damage calculations...... then why is this not extended into the context of capital ammo size meets small sub-cap hull = splat on windshield even if its a near miss?


Assuming there is air in the space?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#27 - 2013-02-06 08:35:36 UTC
These are neat ideas, I'd include Line of Sigth as well, but this would mean redesigning most hulls to minimize exposed surface area.

.
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#28 - 2013-02-06 08:39:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Super spikinator
Kogh Ayon wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
If ship profiles, angles, armor thickness at different places on hulls and ship surface area come into play with damage calculations...... then why is this not extended into the context of capital ammo size meets small sub-cap hull = splat on windshield even if its a near miss?


Assuming there is air in the space?


The Dual Giga series of turrets may be able to do this, dependent on what crystals you use as any energy weapon of that size should have a heat profile. So the future will contain the smallest profile capital ships, firing beam lasers so as to cause a string of sub cap destructions on their way to killing off their target. This would also extend to Judgement obviously.

But this is a buff minmatar thread so I don't think you thought of that.

Edit: how do glancing/grazing shots factor into this? Since Capital munitions should potentially splat something that gets grazed by this. Also if something grazes, does the ammo need to have a new trajectory calculated due the possibility of the package bouncing or being deflected? Heck, shouldn't this also affect every type of munition, even LASER as depending on where you hit on a shielded hull there would be "bounced" energy?
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2013-02-06 09:06:58 UTC
Super spikinator wrote:


The Dual Giga series of turrets may be able to do this, dependent on what crystals you use as any energy weapon of that size should have a heat profile. So the future will contain the smallest profile capital ships, firing beam lasers so as to cause a string of sub cap destructions on their way to killing off their target. This would also extend to Judgement obviously.

But this is a buff minmatar thread so I don't think you thought of that.

Edit: how do glancing/grazing shots factor into this? Since Capital munitions should potentially splat something that gets grazed by this. Also if something grazes, does the ammo need to have a new trajectory calculated due the possibility of the package bouncing or being deflected? Heck, shouldn't this also affect every type of munition, even LASER as depending on where you hit on a shielded hull there would be "bounced" energy?


I would like all of these ideas to happen, but I just doubt if CCP's super computer be able to calculate all of these when the local is 1200.

Ideas are good when they are theoretically possible.
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2013-02-06 18:57:46 UTC
And I don't understand why it can be a minmatar buff thread. All ships will use the same rule that calculate the angle then use the angle to match a modifier, like how people calculate the transversal, ship model will not be counted.
Stabdealer Tichim
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2013-02-06 22:33:11 UTC
Then the Ahacs will be overpowered and battleships die horribly, as ahacs survive by speed and signature radius, and they don't miss battleships from any position. As well as tier 3 battlecruisers
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2013-02-07 04:02:03 UTC
Stabdealer Tichim wrote:
Then the Ahacs will be overpowered and battleships die horribly, as ahacs survive by speed and signature radius, and they don't miss battleships from any position. As well as tier 3 battlecruisers


It's somewhat true. But when the battleships are fitted with tracking turrets, the ahacs would suffer more loss when they try to align out due to engine hits. And when ahacs are orbiting, they do not take advantage of the changes because they are using the side prifile to face the battleships.
Sigras
Conglomo
#33 - 2013-02-07 05:50:24 UTC
Caldari 5 wrote:
Anything that introduces positional tactics, instead of Ball of Death is a step in the right direction.

this isnt universally true . . . lets make all ships completely invulnerable from the front . . .

does this introduce positional tactics? yes, is it a step in the right direction? no!
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#34 - 2013-02-07 06:21:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
i would rather like to have a redesigned tracking formula which takes your own ship rotation into account (orbiting ships should not need to track as much as the ship being orbited.. kinda common sense). But it is probably a requirement for your feature request anyway so i am fine with it ;)

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2013-02-07 09:20:00 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
i would rather like to have a redesigned tracking formula which takes your own ship rotation into account (orbiting ships should not need to track as much as the ship being orbited.. kinda common sense). But it is probably a requirement for your feature request anyway so i am fine with it ;)


So should the tracking speed increase or decrease, when the ship is rotating statically? I don't quite get the idea.
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2013-02-08 00:34:48 UTC
bump for more feed backs
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#37 - 2013-02-08 01:00:30 UTC
Kogh Ayon wrote:


Ideas are good when they are theoretically possible.


the original idea is just as demanding as the others. like u said, a local of 1200 would crap all over the servers with these ideas

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2013-02-08 07:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Kogh Ayon
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Kogh Ayon wrote:


Ideas are good when they are theoretically possible.


the original idea is just as demanding as the others. like u said, a local of 1200 would crap all over the servers with these ideas

I have theoretically proved that it will possibly not happen, because I have tried so much to simplify the calculations. Of course if you are a computer science people or someone work in CCP and tell me "no it will crash the server" then that will be another story.
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2013-02-08 07:44:27 UTC
Quote:
More server loads
This feature would add more loads to the server and may make the large fleet fights lager. However personally (as one who is not a technician) I believe it would not be more complicated than the transversal and capacitor calculations that currently working on the server.


If it makes the game more interesting, then I wouldn't care if it would lag the entire planet, so you have my blessings. EVE is going a bit too far into the arcade route. This change would make things interesting, even if it is just moderately.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Vrykolakasis
Sparrowhawks Corp
#40 - 2013-02-08 17:13:44 UTC
I just think that all of this, fun as it all sounds, is too enormous of a change to game mechanics to make it viable, for way too little of a positive effect. The game already rewards and punishes position, speed, understanding of the battlefield, direction of your ship, bait and switch tactics, psychological warfare with your enemy, etc. I just don't see how adding an entire hitbox-ish mechanic to it is going to add much at all. Even if the mechanic were added, having your fleet of ships anchor up on you so that it is easier to control range is still going to be a useful tactic, especially in sizeable fleets where micro-managing the movement of all of your members should be secondary, tertiary, or lower on your list of priorities.
Previous page123Next page