These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How would gameplay change, if newtonian physics would be used?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Piran Eligius
PwnCo
#61 - 2013-11-15 20:52:06 UTC
We'd all be using Kerbal Space Program for ship fitting and build testing.
Neeko Demus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2013-11-15 21:18:43 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Finally, there is a very simple fix that would make eve look like it had Newtonian physics, even though its the same game. Presently ships are displayed pointing in the direction they are moving. Instead have them point in the direction they are accelerating. When you slow your ship would spin around and fly backwards. When orbiting it would point toward the center of the orbit.

This would be a client side only change. The eve physics engine treats all ships as balls being pushed about. The client then displays ships positioned at the center of the ball pointing in their flight direction. CCP could add a check box for "show spaceship-like movement" vs "show airplane-like movement". Each player could choose what they like to see.


This might be a good start, but there are some other things, that might be easy to change as well:

- Make the thrusters depending on acceleration instead of velocity.
- Make the acceleration linear instead of an exponential approximation. Especially the turns of big ships look ridiculous as they start fast and getting slower while approxing to the final direction. This unnatural behavior is IMHO the main reason, why spaceships in EVE remind more of submarines as of spaceships.

As far as I know (and please correct me, if I'm wrong) the client uses a Navier-Stokes-Algorithm to compute these "smooth" movements. And for the sole reason, that it looks more "beautiful". Taste is open to dispute.
Fredfredbug4
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2013-11-15 22:35:17 UTC
I feel that in order for EVE to stay prominent for the second decade it needs to completely revamp it's game engine, especially physics. Spreadsheets online may have been fine and dandy a while ago, but the game won't appeal to new players if it doesn't look like how it does in the trailers.

Watch_ Fred Fred Frederation_ and stop [u]cryptozoologist[/u]! Fight against the brutal genocide of fictional creatures across New Eden! Is that a metaphor? Probably not, but the fru-fru- people will sure love it!
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#64 - 2013-11-15 22:46:43 UTC
Fredfredbug4 wrote:
I feel that in order for EVE to stay prominent for the second decade it needs to completely revamp it's game engine, especially physics. Spreadsheets online may have been fine and dandy a while ago, but the game won't appeal to new players if it doesn't look like how it does in the trailers.

Confirming, I want to ram 100mn MWD stabbers into every planet and station, thus purging the universe of all life. Twisted
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#65 - 2013-11-15 22:49:09 UTC
Neeko Demus wrote:
As a physicist I can't help ...


...but understand that gamers don't have the ability to work the algorithms and higher level equations to do the simplest of things in space.

On top of that, it's not fun spending four hours matching an orbit to take a shot at someone. Or trying to hit your enemy while flashing by him at a good percentage of the speed of light, never to see him again. Or needing to drop out of warp mid system so you can decelerate enough to hit the next gate without vaporizing yourself.

Not a very bright mechanic idea for a scientist, in my opinion.


Mr Epeen Cool
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#66 - 2013-11-15 22:51:59 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Neeko Demus wrote:
As a physicist I can't help ...


...but understand that gamers don't have the ability to work the algorithms and higher level equations to do the simplest of things in space.

On top of that, it's not fun spending four hours matching an orbit to take a shot at someone.
...
Not a very bright mechanic idea for a scientist, in my opinion.


Mr Epeen Cool

Actually, the bolded statement (and the first sentence too, really) pretty much describes KSP which atm is both extremely profitable and successful.

Considering the idea forms the core of a very successful and fun game, the mechanic is actually pretty damn good. Just not for Eve.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#67 - 2013-11-16 00:09:48 UTC
Ships could accelerator to ten of thousands of km per hour on thrusters along in under a few minutes. Still would take time to get between locations without warp.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Neeko Demus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2013-11-21 15:31:05 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Neeko Demus wrote:
As a physicist I can't help ...


...but understand that gamers don't have the ability to work the algorithms and higher level equations to do the simplest of things in space.

On top of that, it's not fun spending four hours matching an orbit to take a shot at someone. Or trying to hit your enemy while flashing by him at a good percentage of the speed of light, never to see him again. Or needing to drop out of warp mid system so you can decelerate enough to hit the next gate without vaporizing yourself.

Not a very bright mechanic idea for a scientist, in my opinion.


Mr Epeen Cool


Gamers won't need the ability to work any algorithm or equation of any kind. That's why they play on a computer, that does all that stuff for them.

Why would anybody have to spend hours to match an orbit. Just press the orbit button and open fire. Again, the matching work will be done by your computer.

It would take you hours to reach just 1% of speed of light. So nobody would be able to flash at an enemy with a "good percentage of the speed of light". If you just use the orbit button, you would not have that problem. A "drive-by shooting" is a bad idea even with max speed, as the angular velocity gets to high.

But what happens, if one drops out of warp is indeed a good question:

Scenario 1:
One has to reach a static threshold velocity to enter warp. Then I would propose, that you exit warp at the same velocity. So you would need the same time to halt after drop out, as you needed to enter it, quite the same as now. But you would also need the same distance before and after warp, quite unlike it is now.

Scenario 2:
If the velocity has to be matched to the velocity of the warp destination before you enter warp, the (relative) velocity at exit would be zero. But this would also mean, that align time no longer depends solely on the ship, but also on the difference in velocity of start and destination. This would also mean, that velocities would have to be assigned to every warp destination. (There have been some "Make the planets move"-threads in this forum)

Scenarion 3:
You would have to wait a given time (which may depend on the ship and its fitting) to enter warp. Then warp could be exited with the same velocity (and oriantation!?) as it was entered, quite like scenario 1. Then, the max. time to halt after warp would be that align time. (If you want to warp to a stargate or station and leave warp at 0 km, it might be a wise decision, to enter warp at lower velocities, but the decision is upon you.)
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#69 - 2013-11-21 15:33:55 UTC
Neeko Demus wrote:
Words



How do you know the liquid-mechanics aren't how the navicomp extrapolates "safe" STL flight?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Desivo Delta Visseroff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2013-11-21 16:59:16 UTC
Actually, What I would like to see are some minor after-effects placed upon ships during combat/collision. Right now all we have is bumping, which is fine, but I would like to see that expanded, say during combat. I would like to see ships react when hit. Moreover the way the ships would react would be based upon the amount of force applied by the impacts of received damage (albeit, a bit toned down).

As an example, A Battleship gets hit by a Battleship sized weapon, the Ship would shudder, lose a bit of speed and then regain its composure. A Battle cruiser getting hit by a BS weapon would lurch off its axis from taking absorbing the force of the impact. A Cruiser would be pushed off it's orbit and need a second or two to get back on track or be forced to alter course/obit. Frigs/Dessies would be knocked a couple hundred meters away and forced into a bit of a spin while they try to recoverTwisted

Complicated I know, but it would really add to the engagement strategy. Nothing else would change, just give some mass/energy to the weapons.

Do you engage head on, orbit or try to strafe past before looping around?

Do you and your gang constantly hammer your target from one direction and risk knocking them out of your scram range? Or do you try to trap them in a pincer maneuver?

I know this would make aligning to warp away more difficult. But that's the point. Not letting your prey escape so easilyTwisted

Think about the Cap BattlesShocked

I was hunting for sick loot, but all I could get my hands on were 50 corpses[:|]..............[:=d]
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
#71 - 2013-11-21 22:02:06 UTC
[quote=Neeko Demus] It would take you hours to reach just 1% of speed of light. So nobody would be able to flash at an enemy with a "good percentage of the speed of light". If you just use the orbit button, you would not have that problem. A "drive-by shooting" is a bad idea even with max speed, as the angular velocity gets to high.[\quote]

A lot of ships in this game can accelerate at 400 m/s. Do that for 20 seconds, and you're moving at 12 km/s - and now you can't turn. You can go ahead and apply 400 m/s thrust at right angles and slowly drift a different direction, but this magical "orbit" button you're talking about is nothing but pure fantasy when you're talking about orbiting small ships with their own high relative velocity. You keep using words without knowing what they mean (not being insulting, just stating fact).

There is a reason why sci-fi in general and EVE in particular mess with the physics of space combat. Imagine the dogfight over the first Death Star if those X-wings and TIE fighters acted more like true space craft and less like they were flying in an atomsphere. Treating them like atmospheric craft was wrong from a physics standpoint, but made for a much more engaging fight.

Because true space combat would be BORING AS ****. That's pretty much a fact, no matter how much you want to pretend that orbital mechanics and autopilots will make ship-to-ship engagements anything other than tedious and overbearingly dull under a regime of "true" physics.

You're not even pretending to respond to actual, concrete examples of why this is a bad idea. Re-read the thread before you post again and address them, please. You'll probably be able to independently figure out why this is such a bad idea.

I am not an alt of Chribba.
Eurydia Vespasian
Storm Hunters
#72 - 2013-11-21 22:05:41 UTC
bumping should be a flaggable offense. when I pay isk for a ship that includes the paint job. it's a pretty rare occurrence for a person behind the wheel of a car to just purposefully go bash into some other vehicle parked someplace. and, if they do....there are legal consequences lol
Corvald Tyrska
Valknetra
#73 - 2013-11-22 00:18:39 UTC
The most immediate effect of applying Newtonian physics to EVE would be seeing virtually every Gallente ship spin uncontrollably out of control or explode due to the stresses on the hull the second the engines engage. Oversized, asymmetrically placed engines and Newtonian physics FTW Roll
fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2013-11-22 00:23:11 UTC
Neeko Demus wrote:
As a physicist I can't help myself but to think "This is so wrong", everytime I undock. Think of it, as if you would see an Amarr strained at a leash by a Minimatar.

I know there have been a handfull of threads about this topic. I don't want to stack the next "Make EVE more realistic" thread containing mostly "Don't break our EVE"-Posts on the pile. I neither expect nor want EVE to be a fully realistic spacecraft simulator. But I would prefer the look and feel of Newtonian Physics in EVE quite a lot. (Playing an other game is not an option.)

But I also try to consider the gameplay changes, that would be implied by a major change of the physics:


  1. No top speed, no limits?
    2. As the only top speed in the universe is the speed of light in vacuum, space ships at non-relativistic velocities (<30% Lightspeed) have no need to stop accelerating at max 5 km/s (~0.0017% Lightspeed) or lower. But what happens, if a player sets his vessel to max acceleration and goes afk for a couple of hours?

    To answer this question, we have to define that max acceleration first. Let's assume a really fast frigate with just one capsuleer. He may endure forces, a normal human wouldn't. So let's assume a constant acceleration of 50 g (about the highest acceleration a human has withstood click). This means 500 m/s² -> 30 km/s after a minute, 1800 km/s after an hour and so on. It would take over 6 hours to cover a distance of 1 AU and 1 day to reach 13 AU, flying at 14.7% lightspeed at that point. At this point the downtime would end the trip.

  2. Fights at high velocities
    3. Let's assume, you're sitting in an Interceptor, as an enemy fleet drops out of warp at about 100 km from your position. Your FC orders you to burn to them. Let's say you get as fast as 5 km/s. So you would need about 20 seconds to cover the distance.(Correct me, if I'm wrong. Never flown a fleet interceptor.) What would happen, if you are not limited to 5 km/s but to about 50 g? You would also cover the distance in 20 seconds, but would reach the fleet with a velocity of 10 m/s.

  3. Orbiting
    4. An other issue is orbiting. As there is no max velocity, one can always reach the ideal velocity for the radius, given by
    v=sqrt(a*R) v=>velocity, a=>acceleration, R=>orbital radius
    assuming, that the centrifugal force, necessary to maintain the orbit, comes from the thrusters of the orbiting ship.

    Let's say, our 50 g-Ship would like to orbit an other ship at 40 km. Then it would need to reach a orbital velocity of 1414 m/s (angular velocity 0.03 rad/s). That would be reached in less than 3 seconds from 0 velocity. But if the ship approaches with 10 km/s, it would have to decelerate, what would take about 17 seconds.


Hard to control
Most people are concerned about controlling spacecrafts will become a lot harder in this scenario. We are used to the behaviour of cars or planes. So the behaviour of spaceships is hard to get used to. But what would really change? The most maneuvers are performed by pressing one button. What's speaking against keeping it that way. If you order the ship, to orbit at x km, you press the button, and the computer calculates the necessary maneuvers.

What do you think? Are these major impacts on gameplay, or are they rather specific? Have I forgotten something?

And again: This thread isn't about turning EVE into a spacecraft simulator. It is about the impacts, newtonian physics would have onto gameplay. I'm not insisting, that CCP has to change the game.


so the top speed in the universe is light in a vacuum?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#75 - 2013-11-22 01:34:29 UTC
fuer0n wrote:
Neeko Demus wrote:
As a physicist I can't help myself but to think "This is so wrong", everytime I undock. Think of it, as if you would see an Amarr strained at a leash by a Minimatar.

I know there have been a handfull of threads about this topic. I don't want to stack the next "Make EVE more realistic" thread containing mostly "Don't break our EVE"-Posts on the pile. I neither expect nor want EVE to be a fully realistic spacecraft simulator. But I would prefer the look and feel of Newtonian Physics in EVE quite a lot. (Playing an other game is not an option.)

But I also try to consider the gameplay changes, that would be implied by a major change of the physics:


  1. No top speed, no limits?
    2. As the only top speed in the universe is the speed of light in vacuum, space ships at non-relativistic velocities (<30% Lightspeed) have no need to stop accelerating at max 5 km/s (~0.0017% Lightspeed) or lower. But what happens, if a player sets his vessel to max acceleration and goes afk for a couple of hours?

    To answer this question, we have to define that max acceleration first. Let's assume a really fast frigate with just one capsuleer. He may endure forces, a normal human wouldn't. So let's assume a constant acceleration of 50 g (about the highest acceleration a human has withstood click). This means 500 m/s² -> 30 km/s after a minute, 1800 km/s after an hour and so on. It would take over 6 hours to cover a distance of 1 AU and 1 day to reach 13 AU, flying at 14.7% lightspeed at that point. At this point the downtime would end the trip.

  2. Fights at high velocities
    3. Let's assume, you're sitting in an Interceptor, as an enemy fleet drops out of warp at about 100 km from your position. Your FC orders you to burn to them. Let's say you get as fast as 5 km/s. So you would need about 20 seconds to cover the distance.(Correct me, if I'm wrong. Never flown a fleet interceptor.) What would happen, if you are not limited to 5 km/s but to about 50 g? You would also cover the distance in 20 seconds, but would reach the fleet with a velocity of 10 m/s.

  3. Orbiting
    4. An other issue is orbiting. As there is no max velocity, one can always reach the ideal velocity for the radius, given by
    v=sqrt(a*R) v=>velocity, a=>acceleration, R=>orbital radius
    assuming, that the centrifugal force, necessary to maintain the orbit, comes from the thrusters of the orbiting ship.

    Let's say, our 50 g-Ship would like to orbit an other ship at 40 km. Then it would need to reach a orbital velocity of 1414 m/s (angular velocity 0.03 rad/s). That would be reached in less than 3 seconds from 0 velocity. But if the ship approaches with 10 km/s, it would have to decelerate, what would take about 17 seconds.


Hard to control
Most people are concerned about controlling spacecrafts will become a lot harder in this scenario. We are used to the behaviour of cars or planes. So the behaviour of spaceships is hard to get used to. But what would really change? The most maneuvers are performed by pressing one button. What's speaking against keeping it that way. If you order the ship, to orbit at x km, you press the button, and the computer calculates the necessary maneuvers.

What do you think? Are these major impacts on gameplay, or are they rather specific? Have I forgotten something?

And again: This thread isn't about turning EVE into a spacecraft simulator. It is about the impacts, newtonian physics would have onto gameplay. I'm not insisting, that CCP has to change the game.


so the top speed in the universe is light in a vacuum?



That's not newtonian, but it is relativistic.

Of course, things get odd when you get to significant fractions of the speed of light.

Like time dilation. And distance compression.

You can't break light speed. But you can subjectively, break it. So for you, you travel between two points in less time than light would (by your clock. By the clocks of everyone outside your frame, you took exactly the time it should take, at a sub light speed)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#76 - 2013-11-22 01:45:23 UTC
Neeko Demus wrote:
It is about the impacts, newtonian physics would have onto gameplay.
I've never understood why people assume that, in a world where magic FTL technology exists to cross systems and what is essentially magic teleportation technology exists for travel between systems, STL is realistic technology but the physics are all wacky.

It's much more consistent to simply assume that, like jump and warp drives, ship engines do not operate using known principles.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Kiryen O'Bannon
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#77 - 2013-11-22 05:23:56 UTC
All the weapons, sensors, and even the grid would need to be changed to realistic ranges. Instead of some weapons that are limited to a few thousand meters, every weapon would need a range of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of kilometers, minimum to have combat at all.

It'd be EVE - Honorverse version.

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
Anslo
Scope Works
#78 - 2013-11-22 05:26:33 UTC
Inty pilots would finally be able to see if Einstein was right about FTL travel..

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
CETA Elitist
The Prometheus Society
#79 - 2013-11-22 07:06:47 UTC
Johan Civire wrote:
Tippia wrote:
R...

Stopped there since I ran out of breath from the laughter. Lol


Me to because you watch to many star trek movies.

And clearly this is not your cup of tea.

Yah you can fire rockets in vacuum space...... NOT there is no air to travel in and the have no impact to any object in space. Because there is no gravity to make the impact.

but that's not to point to say how stupid your answer is. But he some one try to insult people clearly,, you.... go back in your cave and stay there.

LOL
Amber Kurvora
#80 - 2013-11-22 12:08:51 UTC
I've always loved the idea of being able to roll a ship in mid combat to protect a baldy mauled side and offer up fresh armour for protection, but alas it would be far too complicated and resource hungry to pull off. That aside, having actual Newtonian physics would be a game killer. If Kerbal Space Program has taught me anything, it's that most people don't have the physics knowledge to be able to take a dump in space, let along pilot a million ton space craft through the cold empty void. In short please don't ever introduce Newtonian physics in a game which is supposed to be fun.