These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Bumping freighters and criminal flags

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#181 - 2013-09-16 15:58:27 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
You owe me a keyboard because mine is now soiled with coffee. I will accept 3 plex in lieu of keyboard.


Updated signature for liability purposes. Acquiring space-lawyer while awaiting service of space-process.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#182 - 2013-09-16 20:54:24 UTC
So if bumping a freighter gets you a criminal flag, shouldn't a freighter bumping another ship get a criminal flag too? Twisted

I think I'd be okay with this.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#183 - 2013-09-16 21:12:11 UTC
Just give everyone in hi-sec a criminal flag.

Problem solved.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#184 - 2013-09-16 21:22:57 UTC
Maliandra wrote:
I've read some threads about this and am yet to see a response to this question: How is it logical that using a warp disruptor raises a criminal flag but preventing someone from warping by bumping into their ship endlessly does not?

I understand bumping is not in itself an exploit, and it would be tough to place flags as how does one determine when it is appropriate to do so?

None the less this issue needs to be looked at. I don't fly freighters or do much that requires such transportation so I don't think I'm (too) biased when it comes to this. Can't ignore the faulty logic.
RRing criminals flags you. Why? You are helping criminals. So... what's the bumper doing?

CCP should sit down and come up with a solution. There should be something "between" a yellow and orange flag for this and they need to find an effective way for it to exist within the game.



Because technically bumping is not shutting down their warp core; it is still spooling up.

Bumping is keeping the ship from attaining full align and 75% speed.

Since the warp drive is still able to spool up it's not a flag. Warp scram/disruptor actually affects the ships warp strength therefore = flag.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#185 - 2013-09-16 21:25:22 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Maliandra wrote:
I've read some threads about this and am yet to see a response to this question: How is it logical that using a warp disruptor raises a criminal flag but preventing someone from warping by bumping into their ship endlessly does not?

I understand bumping is not in itself an exploit, and it would be tough to place flags as how does one determine when it is appropriate to do so?

None the less this issue needs to be looked at. I don't fly freighters or do much that requires such transportation so I don't think I'm (too) biased when it comes to this. Can't ignore the faulty logic.
RRing criminals flags you. Why? You are helping criminals. So... what's the bumper doing?

CCP should sit down and come up with a solution. There should be something "between" a yellow and orange flag for this and they need to find an effective way for it to exist within the game.


No.

If bumping were any form of attack, then I would sit on the undock in Jita and get people blown up endlessly. The reason is not in any way shape or form an act that flags you is because it can, and much of the time is done accidentally. Make it a hostile act and you've opened up a can of worms you really don't want the smart, mean people in this game to have access to.

Just have someone double-web your ship to cut your time to warp. It's beyond easy.

Its very easy for the server to tell the difference between deliberate bumping and accidental bumping.

Deliberate -

Ship is moving at great speed.
Ship is repeatedly colliding with the bumped ship while moving at great speed in a forward direction.
Ship is moving away at high speed to get range for next bump.
Ship is using MWD.

vs

Undocking

Ship is moving at slow speed
Ship is bumping another ship at slow speed while moving up down, sideways.
Ship is not moving away at high speed to get range for next bump.
Ship is not using MWD.

Simple.



Collision mechanics are an important part of this game.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#186 - 2013-09-16 21:42:06 UTC
Lord LazyGhost wrote:
what is not logical is that somthing the size of a interceptor can fly at 5k mps and slab into the size of something the size of a freighter and take no damage. That's like saying right i have a speed boat i am going to crash into the side of this oil tanker to move it. speed boat would just go pop.



Do this... go underwater with a bat and a ball.

Try to hit a home run.

Tell me the results.

Welcome to Eve collisions.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#187 - 2013-09-16 21:43:46 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Plates and overdrives won't work like a MWD'ing Mach.

Its not like there will be more thousands of people bumping lol. I'm sure the cluster can handle a few checks when ships collide. They already do. Even at peak hour there's probably 50 people bumping at undock in Jita. If you consider 50 people bumping, that's 100 tasks for the server.

If you consider one person entering system, that's (lets say there are 2000 people in local) the server has to do 2000 tasks just to update everyone with the new person. Every message in local 2000 tasks and so on. Every time a person undocks, everyone on grid needs to see them, all overviews need to see them and so on. Its miniscule in comparison.

Its not anything to do with the physics model. Its collision detection. I don't how EvE does it and you don't either but I doubt the collision detection is intertwined with the physics code itself.

It would be more likely that when a collision detection function detects a collision, the function generates a call to the physics engine to update it so that it changes velocity, applies whatever friction it needs, changes the angle of the ships travel.

Programming is modular. Its all divided into functions. The functions usually are as independent of each other as possible which is called loose coupling. Its like that so you can change a function, say collision detection, and you get as little carry over to other functions as possible.



Step one, it isn't the cluster handling the bumps, it's that single shard running the system. Jits is on it's own speshul system, so using that as a comparison is right out.

Collision detection *IS* the physics model. I mean, that's the PRIME job of a physics engine, is to work out collisions.

Also, again IIRC, there is no friction in EVE collision. Someone worked out the math long ago, but the rebound is simply done via a percent comparison based off of mass and velocity. This is why MWD works so well for bumping, it adds both.

Yes, programming is modular in a perfect world, in brand new code straight off the CVS. Now add ten years of patches, hacks hooks, and "just make it works".

You've still danced around exactly what I proposed. Rather than a simple DB call and compare at the (as you put it yourself) the rare instance of intentional collision, you want to install an overarching real-time module to physics engine check that does not currently exist. We're also doing this when the vast majority of the EVE playerbase, and CCP itself is happy with the current system of human evaluation of intent, if-when needed.



Anyway, lets say we install your system. After X MWD in Y timeframe, CONCORD shows up and kills the bumpers. No problem. I'll only bump in Y+1 time, and bring enough buddies to fill in the time. Make 5 minutes your timeframe, sure. I'll bring 25 buddies to bump (not hard at all). That's a bump per 15 seconds.

Any code fix you try to employ, is a fix I can work around. The only way to stop bumping is to ban it, and...CCP likes bumping. They've coined it as the "poor man's point" and toss it up as an example of unplanned emergent gameplay.

You're not quite understanding. A physics engine (I don't know EvE's so I'm being general) only handles physics. It shouldn't care about MWD. It doesn't care about collisions.

If I was programming a very simple program that dealt with this stuff I would have the graphics engine (only handles graphics), a physics engine (only handles pure physics), a collision detection model (only handles collisions), a flagging system (only handles flagging).

If in my program a ship collided it would be detected by my collision detection model. The collision detection system (CDS) would call the flagging system (FS) with the ships object id (ship1, ship2), the flagging system would examine ship1 and ship2 data and do its stuff. The CDS would then call the physics engine (PE) with the same id's. The PE would examine the ship1 and ship 2 data and do its stuff. It doesn't even know that a MWD exists, it exists just to handle physics so it does it stuff based on ship1 and ship2 data. The CDS doesn't call the graphics system because that's handled by the main system which called the CDS.

As for your only bumping x number of times well true but that's infinitely better then as many times as you like.



Damn those things that aren't physics like mass and velocity and speed and inerti... oh wait.

Those are exactly what the mwd affects. Physics stuffs.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Spurty
#188 - 2013-09-16 21:46:45 UTC
Join corp, have buds web you, collect your own tears

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#189 - 2013-09-16 21:48:19 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
TL; DR:

Infinity Ziona remains convinced that collision has nothing to with physics.

So if I created a space game with no planets, nothing that a ship could collide with, lets say its in interstellar space, I wouldn't need a physics engine because there are no collisions :)

Oh and therefore no physics?



Uh, you'd have a wall.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#190 - 2013-09-16 21:52:37 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
if you didn't know what 'physics engine' meant in computer games you can just say so and move on you know

I know what it means. Its an engine that handles the physics of the game. It could be a simple function or a complex group of functions but it does not handle collision detection. It handles the physics associated with collisions.

Let me ask you again, if you were simulating a ship floating in space, and you had nothing to collide with as you don't in space, would you or would you not need a physics engine to deal with forces being generated by the ships engines. Would it need collision detection function in such an instance?

The answer is no. The absence of a collision detection component does not make that physics engine not a physics engine therefore a physics engine does not have collision detection. If it does its an additional component and not part of the physics engine.

Oh and if it is integrated into the physics engine code then the programmers are stupid. It needs to be modular so it can be easily unplugged and updated.



Incorrect, as usual. If *I* were simulating a ship floating in space, I'd render it all with something like Maya, because including a whole physics engine when unneeded is insane.

If there's no interaction with anything in space, and you want interactivity, you could just code in texture translation and movement to simulate motion. No need to include a physics engine, if there's no collision detection needed.

lmao. Really so an engine producing thrust (motion) with fuel (energy) and moving a ship (mass) does not require physics. We should tell NASA they could save a bunch by firing all their physicists :)



What engine and what thrust?

We are talking about a supposed video game with nothing in it to collide with, and since you don't have walls in this game... you're movement is like hanging a pencil from the ceiling and using your hands to manipulate the paper to draw a picture.

That's what is cool about "simulations" is that they aren't real.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#191 - 2013-09-16 22:13:27 UTC
Maliandra wrote:
I've read some threads about this and am yet to see a response to this question: How is it logical that using a warp disruptor raises a criminal flag but preventing someone from warping by bumping into their ship endlessly does not?

I understand bumping is not in itself an exploit, and it would be tough to place flags as how does one determine when it is appropriate to do so?

None the less this issue needs to be looked at. I don't fly freighters or do much that requires such transportation so I don't think I'm (too) biased when it comes to this. Can't ignore the faulty logic.
RRing criminals flags you. Why? You are helping criminals. So... what's the bumper doing?

CCP should sit down and come up with a solution. There should be something "between" a yellow and orange flag for this and they need to find an effective way for it to exist within the game.



So tell me. How will CCP decide when a bump is intentional or accidental in the market hubs - or any other high populated area.

Not only that, bumping is not always used in your 'so called' criminal act. What about legit wardec tactics?

Returning to believing it is a criminal act - that is your opinion. Many do not share that opinion and see bumping as a means to a legitimate end which may have non-criminal association. Who decides when and where it is criminal or not? If indeed CCP dedides that it is.

I dont' see the need for CCP to sit down and waste time hashing this out when there are many more important things to focus on.

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#192 - 2013-09-16 23:27:49 UTC
===

Working as intended? I actually think there is a strong argument to be made that capital ships should only fly escorted, whether in high sec or low sec or null sec.

===

BUT, ...

.... the tool needed for escorts to aid the pilot, webbing them, is restricted to corp mates only. Right ? if you web someone out of corp in high sec you get concord on you don't you?

If webbing a fleet member did not trigger a criminal flag.... that could allow a pretty neat Role Playing player solution: Call the Red Frog Emergency Towing(webbing) service... for a flat fee they'd travel to your location after called on their chat channel and make their way to you , fleet up and webb you into warp?

Of course.. I don't know how hard that would be to change the flagging on one type of module on one sort of relationship status(being in fleet)

.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#193 - 2013-09-17 00:18:38 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
if you didn't know what 'physics engine' meant in computer games you can just say so and move on you know

I know what it means. Its an engine that handles the physics of the game. It could be a simple function or a complex group of functions but it does not handle collision detection. It handles the physics associated with collisions.

Let me ask you again, if you were simulating a ship floating in space, and you had nothing to collide with as you don't in space, would you or would you not need a physics engine to deal with forces being generated by the ships engines. Would it need collision detection function in such an instance?

The answer is no. The absence of a collision detection component does not make that physics engine not a physics engine therefore a physics engine does not have collision detection. If it does its an additional component and not part of the physics engine.

Oh and if it is integrated into the physics engine code then the programmers are stupid. It needs to be modular so it can be easily unplugged and updated.



Incorrect, as usual. If *I* were simulating a ship floating in space, I'd render it all with something like Maya, because including a whole physics engine when unneeded is insane.

If there's no interaction with anything in space, and you want interactivity, you could just code in texture translation and movement to simulate motion. No need to include a physics engine, if there's no collision detection needed.

lmao. Really so an engine producing thrust (motion) with fuel (energy) and moving a ship (mass) does not require physics. We should tell NASA they could save a bunch by firing all their physicists :)



What engine and what thrust?

We are talking about a supposed video game with nothing in it to collide with, and since you don't have walls in this game... you're movement is like hanging a pencil from the ceiling and using your hands to manipulate the paper to draw a picture.

That's what is cool about "simulations" is that they aren't real.

The engine in the ship that's floating is space. The ship produces thrust using energy from fuel. The thrust moves the ship which the engine is attached too. "Simulations" simulate something, usually reality.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Peter Raptor
Galactic Hawks
#194 - 2013-09-17 00:23:57 UTC
If youre repeatedly bumped, simply log off, and the would be gankers will shed tears of their own as your ship vanishes within 1 min, come back in hour and play again ;)

Evelopedia; 

The Amarr Empire, is known for its omnipresent religion  †  
Crimson Gauntlet
Six Gun Sound
#195 - 2013-09-17 00:34:57 UTC
Peter Raptor wrote:
If youre repeatedly bumped, simply log off, and the would be gankers will shed tears of their own as your ship vanishes within 1 min, come back in hour and play again ;)


Try that against Bat County, I dare... Wait a second...

8/10, best troll in the thread.
Number of times my posts have come in after the dev/mod locked the thread:  1
Lady Areola Fappington
#196 - 2013-09-17 00:45:12 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

The engine in the ship that's floating is space. The ship produces thrust using energy from fuel. The thrust moves the ship which the engine is attached too. "Simulations" simulate something, usually reality.



We covered this at length, but just in case, short memory and all:

If there are no collisions, there's no need for a physics engine. Everything that would require a physics engine can be done via texture transforms. This has been a standard way to code movement in video games, when collisions don't need to be factored.

Being a ten year teacher of programming, you should be well aware of this fact.


Back on topic:

I honestly think the "rebound" mechanic used for bumping is kind of silly. It's computationally simple, yes, but does lead to these silly antics. A more realistic approach would look more like tugboats in a harbor, where little guys with big engines apply continuous pressure against a bigger ship to shove it around.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#197 - 2013-09-17 01:51:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

The engine in the ship that's floating is space. The ship produces thrust using energy from fuel. The thrust moves the ship which the engine is attached too. "Simulations" simulate something, usually reality.



We covered this at length, but just in case, short memory and all:

If there are no collisions, there's no need for a physics engine. Everything that would require a physics engine can be done via texture transforms. This has been a standard way to code movement in video games, when collisions don't need to be factored.

Being a ten year teacher of programming, you should be well aware of this fact.



Complete rubbish.

A ship in space with nothing to collide with still needs a physics engine for movement if its to properly simulate moving a mass in space. You don't just make the physics up.

Case in Point:

Quote:
PHYSICS ENGINE

Microsoft Space Simulator uses Newton laws of motion but takes account of relativistic effects by decreasing a spacecraft's acceleration as its speed approaches the speed of light. It does not take account of time dilation.
Atmospheric flight — atmosphere is not modeled
Surface — all planetary surfaces are treated as flat spheres. No collision detection is implemented.


Microsoft Space Simulator

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Lady Areola Fappington
#198 - 2013-09-17 02:01:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Areola Fappington
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Complete rubbish.

A ship in space with nothing to collide with still needs a physics engine for movement if its to properly simulate moving a mass in space. You don't just make the physics up.

Case in Point:

Quote:
PHYSICS ENGINE

Microsoft Space Simulator uses Newton laws of motion but takes account of relativistic effects by decreasing a spacecraft's acceleration as its speed approaches the speed of light. It does not take account of time dilation.
Atmospheric flight — atmosphere is not modeled
Surface — all planetary surfaces are treated as flat spheres. No collision detection is implemented.


Microsoft Space Simulator



Here we go again...


A ship in space with nothing to collide with has no need for a physics engine. All I need to do is transform textures (You do know what transform textures means, yes?) around the POV of the camera (what the player sees).

Next time, try linking a program that isn't 19 years old...and doesn't use the exact system I'm describing to simulate movement.


P.S. what school do you teach at again? If I ever, for some reason need to hire a programmer, I'd like to make sure I weigh the education they got correctly in a hiring decision.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#199 - 2013-09-17 12:59:58 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Because technically bumping is not shutting down their warp core; it is still spooling up.

Bumping is keeping the ship from attaining full align and 75% speed.

Since the warp drive is still able to spool up it's not a flag. Warp scram/disruptor actually affects the ships warp strength therefore = flag.

Dual Vindi-webs aren't shutting down the warp core... but when used on a massive ship on undock its effect is much the same as it makes it all but impossible to slow down to the new 75% speed.
As bumping will often push a freighter at several times its top speed might it not be treated in a similar fashion?

I recall, some years ago, a dev talking about making it impossible (or perhaps simply an exploit) to interupt warp without activating a scrambler type module (or using a bubble where such things are possible). It was never done because (as I recall) of the e-warp being uneffected and therefore bumping was the only method to catch certain botters... It may well also have been pre HICs and therefore bumping would have been the only way to catch Ginger Magician's Nyx (and so forth).
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#200 - 2013-09-17 13:19:56 UTC
Renault T'Bonin wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Renault T'Bonin wrote:

That's fine by me. I don't relish tears from griefing people.

I do admit to enjoying tears shed by the willfully ignorant. Freighter ganking is completely appropriate in this game because there are ways of avoiding it.


I've never gotten why victims will so willfully fuel the tear machine with whinging and crying after a gank.

I've been gotten on my industrial alt a few times. Rather than sending pages full of "OMG U SUX GO DIAF", I just say "Hey, good gank, caught me napping. Next time you won't be so lucky!"


Some people just invest entirely too much emotional clutter into a video game.


I understand it completely. I'm human.

People spend a lot of time getting in game items... losing them is a loss. That's not an inappropriate response.

Misunderstanding that point, is to lack empathy.

The problem... is undocking with something you are not willing to lose. That's the issue. That's what needs to be corrected.

But enjoying the tears when someone loses something they care about? I'm not part of that crew.



This.

I care more about my stuff and my wallet than I do about yours.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.