These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Battlefield Wrecks

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sepheir Sepheron
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2011-10-26 19:05:48 UTC
When a wreck is destroyed the current model for a sub-capital ship is dull and has almost no resemblance to the ship it was before it was destroyed.

My proposal is to create a destroyed ship model for every kind of ship (even capsules) and make the wreck (not the overview icon) stay in space for a long duration even after it is salvaged. If you stumbled upon a grid where a battle took place you should be able to see the wrecks and have a small idea of what actually happened there. This would only work on player ships to avoid accumulated mission wrecks lagging up a system. After a wreck expired it would break apart (maybe because of a reactor instability or w/e) explode a little and vanish instead of just fading away for no reason.

Or, when a player ship is destroyed it would create two wrecks, one default scrap wreck that you can salvage and one wreck that keeps moving in the direction it was and at the velocity it was when it was destroyed then after ten or 15 seconds it would explode a little and break apart.

IMO the ship exploding animation is great but the aftermath when the explosion fades away is very very anticlimactic. Imagine the ship exploding then it keeps moving (on fire with it's frames showing) and breaks apart after exploding a little again and only then the real wreck (the default scrap wreck) is created.

Pods would still be ejected on the first explosion.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#2 - 2011-10-26 19:17:54 UTC
This falls under the category of "much requested feature that most likely has feasibility issues."

While it'd be nice eye-candy (that I do support because, well, who doesn't like eye-candy?) I do question whether this would make the servers and/or our computers hiccup and die when trying to ID and render dozens of ships that may or may not be different from one another.

How did you Veterans start?
Endovior
PFU Consortium
#3 - 2011-10-26 19:44:54 UTC
Supported... but low priority. It'd be nice, but it's not important... and it's especially not important if it'd cause non-trivial lag.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2011-10-26 21:22:27 UTC
all good and well...and I personally would like this.

But when you arrive on to a 1000 man wreck battlefield and you try to render each-and-every wreck....life gets a little nasty for the computer.

Do-able? Likely.

Will it happen? Doubtful.

+1 regardless.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#5 - 2011-10-26 21:28:19 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
all good and well...and I personally would like this.

But when you arrive on to a 1000 man wreck battlefield and you try to render each-and-every wreck....life gets a little nasty for the computer.


Well, if it can render the ships and the drones during combat, it can render the wrecks. AND the wrecks would be static objects with no further traffic relating to them; once you've loaded the grid, the wrecks are there until downtime.

It would probably be a good idea to have selective code so that if enough ships arrived on grid the wrecks would be hidden to prevent overloading the local client, but I don't really see it as a server issue.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-10-26 23:21:09 UTC
Not supported unless it can be done algorithmically without any significant demands being placed on the Art Department.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery
Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#7 - 2011-10-26 23:38:49 UTC
I actually made a topic at the old forums a while ago. Supported :) but it's true it's not as important as other things and that needs to be done in an easy way, for modellers and perfomance.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#8 - 2011-10-27 00:30:58 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Not supported unless it can be done algorithmically without any significant demands being placed on the Art Department.

Agreed. It's a shiny thing, there are other things they could be doing.

That said, it could be made policy that from here on out, every new ship model gets a wreck model to go with it. That way in the course of updating and replacing aging content, this could become a reality without that extra load.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Goose99
#9 - 2011-10-27 04:32:20 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Not supported unless it can be done algorithmically without any significant demands being placed on the Art Department.

Agreed. It's a shiny thing, there are other things they could be doing.

That said, it could be made policy that from here on out, every new ship model gets a wreck model to go with it. That way in the course of updating and replacing aging content, this could become a reality without that extra load.


It's the same model, with the old common texture plastered from all wrecks, as is the case with current capital wrecks. Copy and paste. Nearly zero work for art department.
Sepheir Sepheron
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2011-10-31 14:16:17 UTC
Most of you would probably agree that it isn't very important, but when I started playing EVE I noticed these problems immediately and now that CCP has decided to make what they have better instead of making new things I think this, the warp effect, the cyno effect, and many more things need to be reworked and modernized.

Yes it is just a shiny... but without the shiny we'd just have a spreadsheet, and without the spreadsheet we'd have a movie.
Let's mix the two together to recreate EVE Online the way it should be, no more cutting corners.
Zleon Leigh
#11 - 2012-01-29 04:33:33 UTC
+1 Supported for immersion

Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital. CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day

PvP's latest  incentive program ** Unified Inventory **  'Cause you gotta kill something after trying to use it
Weiland Taur
The Icarus Expedition
Solyaris Chtonium
#12 - 2012-01-29 20:47:59 UTC
This seems like a wonderful proposal that would go well with the ideas of revamping local. It would be nice to jump into a system and have an idea as to what has happened or may be about to happen based on the evidence on the field. Maybe CCP just needs to bite the bullet and upgrade the old hardware department so we can get this level of immersion.

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#13 - 2012-01-29 21:50:17 UTC
+1

performance regression is unlikely and could be solved via dynamic lod on week hardware. You don't see 99% of the wrecks anyway in a large fight.. only a few icons.

if(wreckcout > 100 && framerate < 20fps)
use old method...
else
the eyecandy

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
MrDoco
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-01-30 00:31:17 UTC
I'd love this idea I think that would be great since they all are blah. Like others said, we need numbers. Test it in Jita first, I'd bet it would be in TiD 24/7.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#15 - 2012-01-30 02:13:00 UTC
MrDoco wrote:
I'd love this idea I think that would be great since they all are blah. Like others said, we need numbers. Test it in Jita first, I'd bet it would be in TiD 24/7.

its client side. Client slowdown won't cause the server to slow down.

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