These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

Change turret damage calculation: No more “space-balls“, time to give us real ships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2013-02-09 01:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Kogh Ayon
Vrykolakasis wrote:
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.

People would keep the current tactics at first until those who adapt new tactics get an obvious advantage, as alway it is.

And you said that there are too few positive effects, would you mind to tell which of the positive effects I listed may not happen? Thanks for your feed back.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#42 - 2013-02-09 01:43:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Kogh Ayon wrote:
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.


imagine your ship is a tank. A quick tank "orbits" a not moving tank. The not moving tank has to turn the gun to hit the quick tank. The quick tank however does not have to rotate the gun at all, since the tank itself rotates. In eve, both have to rotate the gun the same amount to hit something... which does not make sense at all. (the root for this issue is the fact that the server dos not know the ship orientation, you are a point.)

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
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#43 - 2013-02-09 01:55:10 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
Kogh Ayon wrote:
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.


imagine your ship is a tank. A quick tank "orbits" a not moving tank. The not moving tank has to turn the gun to hit the quick tank. The quick tank however does not have to rotate the gun at all, since the tank itself rotates. In eve, both have to rotate the gun the same amount to hit something... which does not make sense at all. (the root for this issue is the fact that the server dos not know the ship orientation, you are a point.)


how exactly does the orbiting tank not have to turn its turret. it would require the front of the tank to always be facing the target, which would still require a tracking movement.

as a helicopter jinks around a target, it still has to turn to keep its target in front of it.

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
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#44 - 2013-02-09 04:33:41 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
Kogh Ayon wrote:
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.


imagine your ship is a tank. A quick tank "orbits" a not moving tank. The not moving tank has to turn the gun to hit the quick tank. The quick tank however does not have to rotate the gun at all, since the tank itself rotates. In eve, both have to rotate the gun the same amount to hit something... which does not make sense at all. (the root for this issue is the fact that the server dos not know the ship orientation, you are a point.)


how exactly does the orbiting tank not have to turn its turret.

once he turned it 90 degrees he doesn't have to do anything anymore. It will always point to the enemy as long he drives in perfect cirlces. The tank itself rotates already.

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
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#45 - 2013-02-09 10:14:49 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
Kogh Ayon wrote:
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.


imagine your ship is a tank. A quick tank "orbits" a not moving tank. The not moving tank has to turn the gun to hit the quick tank. The quick tank however does not have to rotate the gun at all, since the tank itself rotates. In eve, both have to rotate the gun the same amount to hit something... which does not make sense at all. (the root for this issue is the fact that the server dos not know the ship orientation, you are a point.)


how exactly does the orbiting tank not have to turn its turret.

once he turned it 90 degrees he doesn't have to do anything anymore. It will always point to the enemy as long he drives in perfect cirlces. The tank itself rotates already.


lol true.

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
PhantomTrojan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2013-02-09 13:20:21 UTC
this would require the creation of a new collision engine witch is non existent at the moment. Those collisions engines are VERY heavy and require a lot of resources. Also the current tracking and shooting formulas would need to be completely revamped to allow this kind of behavior even if the ships are physical cubes with 6 areas of collision, the most important problem here is how resource intensive are most collision system but it would be a cool feature.

note: in most fleet fights i have been we dont orbit anyone unless its a remote repair fleet, sniper fleets in 0.0 HAVE TO MOVE or they will get trapped in a bubble and die horribly.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#47 - 2013-02-09 14:02:10 UTC
Or just screw capital tracking and make capital fights between grids. They hit any ship on the same grid but instead of 150km they get 150k km range. Other ships must go to the opposing capital fleet's grid and target the capitals for their fleet, one ship linked with a capital. The opposing capitals will notice the targeting ship and can try to have it destroyed by the defending sub-capital fleet before the shots are fired.

So you have a sub capital fights going on around two capital fleets in different grids while the capital ships dish it out on more stellar ranges. Fighter bombers and fighters need to be assigned to sub-capital pilots to coordinate the attacks on the enemy grid.

Also deploying cynos would be more strategic.


Alright, alright, I shut up.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Cal Stantson
17eme Chasseurs a Cheval
#48 - 2013-02-09 14:16:49 UTC
Great idea. So now instead of everybody orbiting the FC at 5000, everybody just approaches the FC and he points the fleet towards the enemy. Real game changer right there.
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2013-02-09 20:03:22 UTC
Bienator II wrote:

once he turned it 90 degrees he doesn't have to do anything anymore. It will always point to the enemy as long he drives in perfect cirlces. The tank itself rotates already.

Hum, I understand the tracking in EVE are somewhat different from what in a really close range tank fights.

As in EVE, spaceships are ranged by kms, for most of the time, the time took that rotate turret to the right direction should just take a minor proportion over the tracking process. The majority of tracking power would be spent on fine turnings that make sure the bullets/laser beam really reach the target many kms away, rather than just point the turret to a roughly correct direction.

In this situation, the movement of the shooter itself should increase the difficulty of aiming.
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2013-02-10 00:40:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kogh Ayon
Abrazzar wrote:
Or just screw capital tracking and make capital fights between grids. They hit any ship on the same grid but instead of 150km they get 150k km range. Other ships must go to the opposing capital fleet's grid and target the capitals for their fleet, one ship linked with a capital. The opposing capitals will notice the targeting ship and can try to have it destroyed by the defending sub-capital fleet before the shots are fired.

So you have a sub capital fights going on around two capital fleets in different grids while the capital ships dish it out on more stellar ranges. Fighter bombers and fighters need to be assigned to sub-capital pilots to coordinate the attacks on the enemy grid.

Also deploying cynos would be more strategic.


Alright, alright, I shut up.

I did talked about the effect caused by this change for capitals, as a side effect rather than an objective however.
Anyway capital rebalance is not the goal of this change.
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2013-02-10 20:01:58 UTC
PhantomTrojan wrote:
this would require the creation of a new collision engine witch is non existent at the moment. Those collisions engines are VERY heavy and require a lot of resources. Also the current tracking and shooting formulas would need to be completely revamped to allow this kind of behavior even if the ships are physical cubes with 6 areas of collision, the most important problem here is how resource intensive are most collision system but it would be a cool feature.

note: in most fleet fights i have been we dont orbit anyone unless its a remote repair fleet, sniper fleets in 0.0 HAVE TO MOVE or they will get trapped in a bubble and die horribly.


Collision engine seeing your words I did made a research about "collision engine". However it looks like something deals with the collision or overlaps between two 3d shapes/meshes.

I'm not sure if you read the op, but I understand that sometimes people know technology tend to make simple things complicated by introducing unnecessary techniques, just because they look fit best and then cause a disaster on the budget.

No I don't think any collision detection would be needed here. The spaceships are still treated as "balls" on the server, the only difference is now we use the "ball"'s direction and coordinates of "balls" to calculate an angle.
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2013-02-13 03:16:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Kogh Ayon
Vrykolakasis wrote:
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..


And I just realized that many people actually think it will introduce "micro-management" for FCs? No it is not supposed.
You can do that if you really want to as a FC, but it is really something can be done as an individual with reasonable knowledge of the game, and the actual goal of this change is: allowing you to do something as an individual in fleet in a non-maverick way.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#53 - 2013-02-13 08:45:49 UTC
Watch the fanfest videos about tessellation?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2013-02-14 23:55:52 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Watch the fanfest videos about tessellation?

I think that video is just talking about Nvidia and dx11, as it says "used art work from EVE online", which does not mean the CCP is going to implement that feature.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#55 - 2013-02-15 00:15:31 UTC
If you want realism, go play Microsoft Flight Simulator.
EVE is a global space MMO, and as such, it has to make some steps to reduce server and network load to make the game available to players.
What you suggest would make the game unavailable to many, if not most, people out there.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Infinion
Awesome Corp
#56 - 2013-02-15 00:47:33 UTC
Tonto Auri wrote:
If you want realism, go play Microsoft Flight Simulator.
EVE is a global space MMO, and as such, it has to make some steps to reduce server and network load to make the game available to players.
What you suggest would make the game unavailable to many, if not most, people out there.



He's already made a point about it theoretically not having a huge impact on server load. Load doesn't make the game more or less available to players, it slow the game down (quite literally now that we have time dialation) and players work with whatever the server can push out.

Time dialation is no true solution to lag, but any arguments discouraging features because they could increase server load are counter-intuitive to the game's growth. CCP will always buy new hardware to improve what server nodes can handle. Now that we have TiDi, let's leave the 'load' problem to be solved by hardware improvements rather than feature-starving the game for the sake of the servers.

That being said, if a feature increased load for clients rather than servers, it would be an issue. Here, it is not.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#57 - 2013-02-15 02:31:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Kogh Ayon wrote:
Bienator II wrote:

once he turned it 90 degrees he doesn't have to do anything anymore. It will always point to the enemy as long he drives in perfect cirlces. The tank itself rotates already.

Hum, I understand the tracking in EVE are somewhat different from what in a really close range tank fights.

As in EVE, spaceships are ranged by kms, for most of the time, the time took that rotate turret to the right direction should just take a minor proportion over the tracking process. The majority of tracking power would be spent on fine turnings that make sure the bullets/laser beam really reach the target many kms away, rather than just point the turret to a roughly correct direction.

In this situation, the movement of the shooter itself should increase the difficulty of aiming.

i know that eve tracking is not the same as turret turn rate. But in any case, if you do not have to turn the gun much would make fine corrections easier, the static dude in the middle will have to turn the gun really fast which would make fine tracking more difficult.

an extreme example:
lets take two identical slicers, one stands still the other orbits at 20k optimal with max speed
both start firering at the same time

now the question: who should win?
the orbiting slicer of course

but this is currently not the case

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
Previous page123